Council Minutes: 13 December 2005 - City of Joondalup · c69-12/05 petition requesting removal of she-oak trees, korella park and gunida park, mullaloo and replacement with local

i

MINUTES OF COUNCIL MEETING

HELD ON 13 DECEMBER 2005

TABLE OF CONTENTS

No: Item Page

OPEN AND WELCOME 1 ATTENDANCES 1 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME 2 PUBLIC STATEMENT TIME 7 APOLOGIES AND LEAVE OF ABSENCE 8 DECLARATION OF FINANCIAL INTEREST/INTEREST THAT MAY AFFECT IMPARTIALITY 8 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES C67-12/05 MINUTES OF COUNCIL MEETING, 22NOVEMBER 2005 .......................11 C68-12/05 MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING OF COUNCIL, 6 DECEMBER 2005 ..11

ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE CHAIRMAN WITHOUT DISCUSSION ELECTION, 6 MAY 2006............................................................................12 CRAIGIE LEISURE CENTRE.....................................................................12 LOCAL GOVERNMENT AWARDS ............................................................12 CHRISTMAS ..............................................................................................12

PETITIONS

C69-12/05 PETITION REQUESTING REMOVAL OF SHE-OAK TREES, KORELLA PARK AND GUNIDA PARK, MULLALOO AND REPLACEMENT WITH LOCAL SPECIES SHADY TREES - [07377] [49675] ..................13

REPORTS CJ263 - 12/05 REVIEW OF LOCAL LAWS – [05885]........................................................ 13 CJ264 - 12/05 PROPOSAL FOR A NEW REGIONAL MODEL FOR NORTH WEST

METRO BUSINESS ENTERPRISE CENTRE (NWMBEC) – [03082] [53469]........................................................................................................ 19

CJ265 - 12/05 RESPONSE TO THE WALGA REVIEW OF THE REPRESENTATIONAL AND STRUCTURAL EFFECTIVENESS OF WALGA ZONES – [00033]... 33

CJ266 - 12/05 REPORT ON THE COSTS AWARDED TO THE CITY IN THE MATTER OF THE MULLALOO PROGRESS ASSOCIATION AND THE CITY OF

JOONDALUP AND RENNET PTY LTD CIV 1285 OF 2003 – [02089] ...... 37

CITY OF JOONDALUP – MINUTES OF MEETING OF COUNCIL - 13.12.2005 ii

CJ267 - 12/05 MINUTES OF THE POLICY COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON 29 NOVEMBER 2005 – [01435] ...................................................................... 42

CJ268 - 12/05 MINUTES OF THE AUDIT COMMITTEE MEETING HELD 28 NOVEMBER 2005 - [50068] .......................................................................................... 45

CJ269 - 12/05 SUSTAINABILITY POLICIES – [26176] .................................................... 48 CJ270 - 12/05 RENEWAL OF LEASE TO THE UNDERCROFT BRIDGE CLUB

INCORPORATED: PORTION OF PERCY DOYLE RESERVE - RESERVE 33894, LOCATION 9424, (46) WARWICK ROAD, DUNCRAIG – [17817] 55

CJ271 - 12/05 LOT 118 MINDARIE ESTABLISHMENT AGREEMENT – [41196]...... 59/276 CJ272 - 12/05 LOT 118 MINDARIE - PROPOSED LEASE AMENDMENT WITH

MINDARIE REGIONAL COUNCIL – [41196] ............................................. 60 CJ273 - 12/05 TENDER 026-05/06 INSTALLATION AND MODIFICATION OF TRAFFIC

SIGNALS AT SHENTON AVENUE, JOONDALUP, MCLARTY AVENUE, JOONDALUP, HODGES DRIVE, JOONDALUP, CARIDEAN STREET, HEATHRIDGE AND HEPBURN AVENUE / GIBSON AVENUE, PADBURY INTERSECTIONS – [67575] ...................................................................... 67

CJ274 - 12/05 PROPOSED PARKING SCHEME AMENDMENT – BOAS AVENUE, JOONDALUP – [07190] [07076]................................................................. 72

CJ275 - 12/05 PROPOSED PARKING SCHEME AMENDMENT - BLUE MOUNTAIN DRIVE, JOONDALUP – [07190] [01602].................................................... 76

CJ276 - 12/05 PROPOSED NORTHERN REGION COMMUNITY SAFETY AND CRIME PREVENTION PARTNERSHIP - OFFICE OF CRIME PREVENTION – [23195] [63511]........................................................................................... 79

CJ277 - 12/05 WASTE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY REVIEW 2005 – [36958] [53119]... 83 CJ278 - 12/05 LAND REQUEST FOR PROPOSED COMMUNITY HOUSE IN CRAIGIE

LOT 671 (178) CAMBERWARRA DRIVE (CORNER OF PERILYA ROAD) – [23562]..................................................................................................... 92

CJ279 - 12/05 PROPOSED AMENDMENT NO 34 TO DISTRICT PLANNING SCHEME NO 2 AND MODIFICATION TO THE KINROSS NEIGHBOURHOOD CENTRE STRUCTURE PLAN TO INCREASE THE RETAIL FLOOR SPACE AT THE KINROSS NEIGHBOURHOOD CENTRE, SELKIRK DRIVE, KINROSS [89577] ....................................................................... 103

CJ280 - 12/05 REVIEW OF CASH-IN-LIEU OF CAR PARKING POLICY 7-10 – [72020] ................................................................................................... 109 CJ281 - 12/05 SINGLE HOUSE: RETROSPECTIVE APPROVAL FOR UNAUTHORISED

COMMUNICATIONS ANTENNAE - SATELLITE DISH AND MAST – LOT 595 (16) MAINSAIL DRIVE, OCEAN REEF – [00922] ............................. 115

CJ282 - 12/05 PROPOSED CHILD DAY CARE CENTRE: LOT 207 (87) BLACKALL DRIVE, NORTH EAST CORNER, ALLENSWOOD ROAD, GREENWOOD – [86130]................................................................................................... 126

CJ283 - 12/05 PROPOSED MODIFICATION TO TOWN PLANNING DELEGATION – [46302] [07032]......................................................................................... 139

CJ284 - 12/05 WHITFORD COMMUNITY RATEPAYERS & RECREATION ASSOCIATION COMMUNITY BUS – [07310] ......................................... 146

CJ285 - 12/05 MONTHLY TOWN PLANNING DELEGATED AUTHORITY REPORT – OCTOBER 2005 – [07032]....................................................................... 155

CJ286 - 12/05 MINUTES OF THE SENIORS INTERESTS ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETINGS HELD 3 AUGUST 2005 AND 2 NOVEMBER 2005

– [55511] ................................................................................................... 159 CJ287 - 12/05 REVIEW OF DISCUSSION PAPER ON NEW PUBLIC HEALTH ACT –

[73512]...................................................................................................... 163 CJ288 - 12/05 MIDGE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 2005 –

2010 – [03171].......................................................................................... 174 CJ289 - 12/05 PROPOSED ADDITIONS - NEW FUNCTION ROOM WITH COURTYARD -

CARINE GLADES TAVERN: LOT 12 (493) BEACH ROAD, DUNCRAIG – [05518]...................................................................................................... 181

CITY OF JOONDALUP – MINUTES OF MEETING OF COUNCIL - 13.12.2005 iii

CJ290 - 12/05 PROPOSED TWO NEW COURTYARDS FOR ALFRESCO SEATING - CRAIGIE TAVERN: LOT 675 (111) EDDYSTONE AVENUE, CRAIGIE – [10859]...................................................................................................... 194

CJ291 - 12/05 ARTS MANAGEMENT STRATEGY – [14158] ......................................... 203 CJ292 - 12/05 PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO DISTRICT PLANNING SCHEME NO 2 TO INCLUDE PROVISIONS IN REGARD TO THE HEIGHT OF

DEVELOPMENTS IN NON-RESIDENTIAL ZONES ADJACENT TO THE COAST – [83573] ..................................................................................... 206

CJ293 - 12/05 LEGAL SERVICES TENDER RFT 02-05/06 – [58264] ............................ 219 CJ294 - 12/05 RESPONSE TO THE REQUEST FOR SUBMISSIONS BY THE PUBLIC

ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE ON THE INQUIRY INTO LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA ........... 221

REPORT OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ...................................... 227

CJ295-12/05 SITE ACQUISITION - WORKS DEPOT – [80513] [58498] ...................... 227 C70-12/05 MINUTES OF THE CEO PERFORMANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE

MEETINGS HELD ON 13 OCTOBER 2005 AND 14 NOVEMBER 2005 – [74574]...................................................................................................... 237

C71-12/05 ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING OF ELECTORS HELD ON 28 NOVEMBER 2005 - [65578] .......................................................................................... 240

C72-12/05 SALARIED STAFF - 2005 EBA NEGOTIATIONS.................................... 247 C73-12/05 REVIEW OF WARD NAMES, BOUNDARIES AND ELECTED MEMBER

REPRESENTATION – [16878]................................................................. 254 CJ271 - 12/05 LOT 118 MINDARIE ESTABLISHMENT AGREEMENT – [41196]...... 276/59 C74-12/05 BUSINESS EXCELLENCE FRAMEWORK SEMINAR ............................ 284 MOTIONS OF WHICH PREVIOUS NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN............ 284

DATE OF NEXT MEETING ............................................................................. 284

CLOSURE........................................................................................................... 284

CHRISTMAS ............................................................................................284

CITY OF JOONDALUP MINUTES OF COUNCIL MEETING HELD IN COUNCIL CHAMBER, JOONDALUP CIVIC CENTRE, BOAS AVENUE, JOONDALUP, ON TUESDAY, 13 DECEMBER 2005 OPEN AND WELCOME The Chairman declared the meeting open at 1900 hrs. ATTENDANCES CMR J PATERSON - Chairman CMR P CLOUGH - Deputy Chairman CMR M ANDERSON CMR S SMITH CMR A FOX Officers: Chief Executive Officer G HUNT Absent from 2106 hrs to

2113 hrs Director, Planning and Community Development: C HIGHAM Acting Director, Infrastructure Services: P SCHNEIDER Acting Director, Corporate Services: S HAFEZ Manager, Marketing Communications & Council Support: M SMITH Manager, Audit and Executive Services: K ROBINSON to 2106 hrs Manager Approvals, Planning Environmental Services C TERELINCK Manager, Human Resources: M LOADER Manager Infrastructure Management & Ranger Services P PIKOR Project Officer: M McARTHUR to 2106 hrs Media Advisor: L BRENNAN Committee Clerk: J HARRISON Minute Clerk: L TAYLOR There were 32 members of the Public and 1 member of the Press in attendance.

CITY OF JOONDALUP – MINUTES OF MEETING OF COUNCIL - 13.12.2005 2

PUBLIC QUESTION TIME The following question was taken on notice at the Council meeting held on 22 November 2005: Mr M Caiacob, Mullaloo: Request to reconsider decision not to close pedestrian Access Way between Camm Place and Cohn Place, Hillarys Q1 I did ask what information the Commissioners had been provided with in regards to

Council’s previous decision, because there was a whole raft of decisions or thoughts that went into that decision making process that led Council to believe that this PAW should be closed. Can I have this on notice?

A1 The Commissioners were given the information as outlined in the Background section

of the Report CJ261-11/05, which includes the previous Council resolution to support the closures, and associated Council report dates and report numbers for their reference.

The following questions were submitted in writing prior to the Council meeting on 13 December 2005 Mr M Caiacob, Mullaloo: Report on the costs awarded to the City in the Matter of the Mullaloo Progress Association and the City of Joondalup and Rennet Pty Ltd Q1 Since I am named in a report presented tonight, I request urgent clarification of the

facts surrounding my involvement as a Councillor in this issue. Accordingly I would like to receive confirmation of both the date of when I was first advised in writing as a Councillor of:

(i) the Supreme Court action taken by the City; (ii) the engagement of the solicitors by the City and; (iii) the engagement of a Queen’s Counsel by the City and also the dates of when

I was supplied with any written updates regarding any of the above issues. A1(i) According to records of the City, on 26 May 2003, soon after your election as

councillor, a meeting was held for councillors by the City to brief them on the issue of the Mullaloo Tavern. At that meeting verbal advice as to the City's position in regard to the Supreme Court matter was given. At the Council Meeting of 17 June that was adjourned to 24 June 2003, through Cr O'Brien's Notice of Motion, notification was given as to the existence of the Supreme Court matter as well as the name of the solicitors that were acting on behalf of the City and who had been so engaged since the start of the matter. On 8 July 2003 through the publication 'Desk of the CEO' an update on the matter was also made.

A1(ii) As above. A1(iii) On 30 September 2003, in answer to questions that you raised. The mention of your name in the report was extracted from the court document.


Q2 Similarly I also require urgent clarification of the date when I was first briefed both verbally and/or in writing on any of these three issues as a Councillor since the report presented tonight implies that I was in some way in breach of my Council responsibilities during this item, ie:

(i) the Supreme Court action taken by the City;

(ii) the engagement of the solicitors by the City and; (iii) the engagement of a Queen’s Counsel by the City.

I would also appreciate being supplied with copies of the written records referred to in the above answers before the next meeting since all of these documents should be simple to find in the records and motions of Council. Finally if I do not receive answers to these two simple questions before the next meeting, and copies of the written records referred to in them, I formally request that either my name be removed from this report or that the report be deferred until the relevant records of formal Council business be provided, since there are no such references attached to the report presented tonight.

A2(i) From the City's records it appears that you were informed of the Supreme Court matter commenced by the Mullaloo Progress Association and defended by the City on 26 May 2003.

A2(ii) It appears that you were advised of the representation by the City's solicitors at the

meeting held on 26 May 2003. You were also formally advised of who the City's solicitors were at the Council Meeting of 17 June 2003 that was adjourned to 24 June 2003.

A2(iii) On 30 September 2003, in answer to questions that you raised. It is likely, although

not expressly mentioned, that the advice received from the Queen's Counsel in March 2003 was discussed at the meeting of 26 May 2003.

Mr J Bombak, Joondalup: Questions directed to the CEO, further to questions answered at the Council Meeting on 22 November 2005. Q1 In your investigations of this serious matter, have you ascertained whether this

employee who was intimidated/threatened been similarly treated by members of the public whist this employee was discharging his/her duties as an employee of the City?

Q1.1 If the answer is yes, when did this occur and did any other person(s) overhear the

threat(s) made? Q1.2 What are the names of those persons who made the threat(s) and are they

considered regular members of the public gallery at Council Meetings? Q1.3 Has the employee who was threatened/intimidated taken any stress leave and placed

on any medication as a result of these incidents?


Q1.4 Have you as CEO installed any extra security to protect this employee in order to provide a safer working environment?

Q2 Did you as CEO immediately stand down the employee who made the threat to the

Council Officer? Q2.2 If the answer is no, why not? Q2.3 Is the employee who made the threat still working at the City? Q2.4 Have you as CEO fulfilled your obligations under the Local Government Act and any

other Statute? Q2.5 Is the employee who was threatened/intimidated satisfied with the way you have

handled the matter or complained to you to the contrary? A1-2 These questions will be taken on notice pending receipt of legal advice. The following questions were submitted verbally at the meeting; a summary of each question and the response given is shown below: Mr M Caiacob, Mullaloo: Q1 Re: Ward Boundaries – Council’s previous resolution was “That Council considers

any public submissions following the statutory six (6) week public consultation period.” Options 12 and 13 are not derived from any public submissions. Can I please be advised where these two options came from and why?

A1 The term states “That Council considers any public submissions”. This does not

mean that Council can only consider public submissions. Mr A Bryant, Craigie: Q1 On 19 July, 9 August and 28 November 2005 I asked the question “When is the

Community Centre at the corner of Perilya Road and Camberwarra Drive, Craigie to be built on the Council owned land?” I now repeat the question “When is it to be built?”

A1 The Community House is a State Government initiative; with construction of the

Community House being the responsibility of the State Government. Council’s involvement is whether to gift or sell the land to the State Government.

Q2 Whilst I understand the response given, I query how the Council is going to deal with

DCD in regard to the issue of the land? A2 Response by Cmr Paterson: This is a subject for the Commissioners to deal with

tonight. Q3 In the City of Joondalup Annual Report, Page 40 under the heading “Payments to

Employees” I would like to know which employee is in receipt of an annual salary in the vicinity of $230,000 and 239,999?

A3 The CEO. The figure relates to the total employment contract.


Ms S Hart, Greenwood: Q1 Are Commissioners aware that I mentioned the size of the Agenda for this evening’s

meeting at the Annual General Meeting of Electors. As there are thirty-eight (38) items on this Agenda, I ask if this is accountable and fair to the community?

A1 Response by Cmr Paterson: The Commissioners are aware that you asked this

question. The Agenda is a similar size to that of this time last year. Q2 My motion at the AGM referred to agendas of the two previous years, which was my

point, why does this keep happening? I believe an issue has been overlooked in this Agenda regarding the payment to

former Mayor Carlos. It was a resolution of Council that after the Inquiry was completed, Council would look at it. Wan you please advise when this will occur?

A2 The application for reimbursement of legal expenses by former Mayor Carlos is one

of a number of items that will be dealt with at the February 2006 meeting.

At the meeting Council dealt with the recommendation of the report, it was indicated there would be another report to be submitted to Council and that will be in February 2006.

Ms P Fernandez, Ocean Reef: Q1 Re: Single House: Retrospective Approval for unauthorised communications

antennae - satellite dish and mast – Lot 595 (16) Mainsail Drive, Ocean Reef: Why has Council not investigated any of the 750 complaints put forward by Mr

Pearce on television/satellite dishes and is Council prepared to treat Mr Pearce’s 750 complaints with equal opportunity as Council has dealt with others?

A1 The City is aware of the number of complaints from Mr Pearce and is investigating

the best way to deal with the issue. It is related to a broader issue of how satellite dishes are defined within the Scheme. Advice will be available as soon as the City can develop it.

In terms of the second part of the question in relation to Mr Pearce’s application,

Council has an obligation to assess each application on merit, a report is being prepared for Mr Pearce’s application.

Q2 Why has it taken four telephone calls to the CEO over the last seven months for a

response to Mr Pearce’s application for approval of the satellite dish? A2 The City has been making efforts to investigate what can be done in relation to the

satellite dish. A number of complaints have been received during that time. In terms of specific calls to the CEO, a report has been prepared in recognition of all the facts that the City has before it. Where meetings have been held, that information has been added to the information that the City already has.

Mrs M Zakrevsky, Mullaloo: Q1 Would Council please consider running free “Waterwise Garden” workshops again in

2006? Ratepayers who attended this year have reported that they were very popular, i.e., capacity attendance. They were most appreciative of the opportunity to gain useful, sustainable, sound advice?


A1 The City will be making a budget submission to run the Waterwise Garden Workshops again.

Mr J McNamara, Sorrento: Q1 I preface my question with the assumption that there will be only minor amendments

to Item CJ292-12/05 - Proposed Amendment to District Planning Scheme No 2 to include provisions in regard to the Height of Developments In Non-Residential Zones adjacent to the coast on the Agenda. May I thank Council for listening to the community and representing their interests in this matter?

A1 Response by Cmr Paterson: Yes, thank you for the compliments. Q2 Re: Ward Boundaries – I am concerned with the recommendation from the City for

three wards only. The Minister, when he commented on the election, was keen to encourage people to stand for election. People looking at the situation of three wards would have to canvas approximately 35,000 people; which maybe found daunting and discourage people from nominating for Council. Can I ask that this consideration be undertaken by Commissioners?

A2 Response by Cmr Paterson: Yes. Ms A Walker, Padbury: Q1 Is Council carrying out any kind of survey regarding facilities in the City of Joondalup? A1 The City has carried out a study of the needs analysis of community facilities recently. Q2 Who carried out the survey and what was the cost? A2 The survey was outsourced. It was conducted by Solly and Associates Planning and

Managing Consultants at a cost of $4,200. Dr V Cusack, Kingsley: Q1 Re: Ward Boundaries – I’m considering the report that it says “no later than 30 June

2006.” What is the real reason for fast tracking this review and putting forward a recommendation that does not meet the criteria?

A1 In relation to the timing of the ward boundaries, I would draw to the Commissioners

and Dr Cusack’s attention that this matter was first raised in April 2005 when there was an agreement for a background paper on the issue. In June 2005, the City received advice from the Local Government Advisory Board calling on Council to review its boundaries by June 2006.

The City held discussions and workshops in relation to undertaking the Ward Boundary Review. The City has been under no pressure and would not accept any pressure from any external party in relation to the Ward Boundaries. The progression of the matter to Council is a matter that needed to be addressed. There are compelling issues that relate to ward boundaries, that if, they are not addressed now, could have significant impact on this Council going forward.


Q2 The last part of my question was why did the recommendation, I think it is Option 13, come forward as it clearly does not meet the criteria?

A2 Response by Cmr Paterson: That is a decision the Commissioners will make. Q3 By way of clarification, I am concerned that the Commissioners may be inadvertently

misled in terms of the requirement of the 10 per cent deviation either way because the Minister made a clear statement that he would not consider any proposed changes. The majority of the community submissions do not want a change. Why can’t the current system be voted on and accepted? Can you please clarify that?

A3 The Local Government Advisory Board (LGAB) is the body appointed by the Minister

for Local Government to deal with ward boundaries. It develops the criteria and guidelines and under the Act the LGAB now have additional powers to enforce the changes to ward boundaries. It has been identified that our ward boundaries do not conform and the City is of the opinion that it is imperative that they are reviewed.

Q4 Have the Commissioners been told the requirements of Schedule 2.1 of the Local

Government Act by way of referendum? A4 There is new legislation that allows that to happen. Mrs M Macdonald, Mullaloo Q1 On Tuesday, 6 December 2005, Commissioners passed a motion to approve an aged

care nursing home in Kingsley using discretion with twenty-five (25) conditions and footnotes. Are they legally binding on the developer or can they be varied by delegated authority or would any deviation from these conditions need to come back to Council for approval?

A1 This question will be taken on notice. PUBLIC STATEMENT TIME Mr M Caiacob, Mullaloo: Mr Caiacob spoke in relation to the Item dealing with ward boundaries. Ms S Hart, Greenwood: Ms Hart made reference to the issues as listed below:

the incorporation of Lot 1 into Tom Simpson Park proper; concerns in relation to the Item dealing with ward boundaries; report on the costs awarded to the City in the matter of the Mullaloo Progress

Association and the City of Joondalup and Rennet Pty Ltd CIV 1285 of 2003. Mr R de Gruchy, Sorrento: Mr de Gruchy thanked the CEO on how he dealt with the issue in relation to the proposed Works Depot.


Ms P Fernandez, Ocean Reef: Ms Fernandez spoke on behalf of Mr R Pearce regarding the report on Satellite Dishes. Mr J McNamara, Sorrento: Mr McNamara spoke in response to a question he raised at the Annual General Meeting of Electors regarding the future of the City of Joondalup. Mrs M Zakrevsky, Mullaloo: Mrs Zakrevsky made a statement on the review of ward names, boundaries and elected members. Dr V Cusack, Kingsley: Dr Cusack spoke in relation to the review of ward names, boundaries and elected members and in relation to an article written by the CEO in the Western Councillor magazine regarding the rebuilding of community trust in the City of Joondalup. Ms J Hughes, Woodvale, MLA Member for Kingsley: Ms Hughes raised her concerns on the Item in relation to the review of ward names, boundaries and elected members. Mr D Davies, Connolly: Mr Davies raised his concerns in relation to the Item on the review of ward names, boundaries and elected members. APOLOGIES AND LEAVE OF ABSENCE Nil. DECLARATIONS OF FINANCIAL INTEREST/INTEREST THAT MAY AFFECT IMPARTIALITY Disclosure of Financial Interests

A declaration under this section requires that the nature of the interest must be disclosed. Consequently a member who has made a declaration must not preside, participate in, or be present during any discussion or decision-making procedure relating to the matter the subject of the declaration. An employee is required to disclose their financial interest and if required to do so by the Council must disclose the extent of the interest. Employees are required to disclose their financial interests where they are required to present verbal or written reports to the Council. Employees are able to continue to provide advice to the Council in the decision making process if they have disclosed their interest.

Name/Position Cmr S Smith Item No/Subject CJ273-12/05 - Tender 026-05/06 Installation and modification of

traffic signals at Shenton Avenue, Joondalup, McLarty Avenue, Joondalup, Hodges Drive, Joondalup, Caridean Street, Heathridge and Hepburn Avenue / Gibson Avenue, Padbury Intersections

Nature of interest Financial Extent of Interest Cmr Smith owns property in the suburb of Padbury.


Name/Position Cmr S Smith Item No/Subject CJ284-12/05 – Whitford Community Ratepayers & Recreation

Association Community Bus Nature of interest Financial Extent of Interest Cmr Smith owns property in the Whitford area.

Name/Position Mr Garry Hunt – Chief Executive Officer Item No/Subject C73-12/05 – Minutes of the CEO Performance Review Committee

Meetings held on 13 October 2005 and 14 November 2005 Nature of interest Financial Extent of Interest Mr Hunt is employed as CEO.

Disclosure of interest affecting impartiality

Commissioners and staff are required under the Code of Conduct, in addition to declaring any financial interest, to declare any interest that may affect their impartiality in considering a matter. This declaration does not restrict any right to participate in or be present during the decision-making process. The Commissioner/employee is also encouraged to disclose the nature of the interest.

Name/Position Cmr S Smith Item No/Subject CJ265-12/05 – Response to the WALGA Review of the

Representational and Structural Effectiveness of WALGA Zones Nature of interest Interest that may affect impartiality Extent of Interest Cmr Smith undertakes contract work for WALGA.

Name/Position Cmr P Clough Item No/Subject CJ271-12/05 – Lot 118 Mindarie Establishment Agreement Nature of interest Interest that may affect impartiality Extent of Interest Cmr Clough has been appointed to take up a position once the new

Council is created. Name/Position Cmr M Anderson Item No/Subject CJ271-12/05 – Lot 118 Mindarie Establishment Agreement Nature of interest Interest that may affect impartiality Extent of Interest Cmr Anderson will be deputy to Cmrs Paterson and Clough once

the new Council is created. Name/Position Cmr S Smith Item No/Subject CJ272-12/05 – Lot 118 Mindarie – Proposed Lease Amendment

with Mindarie Regional Council Nature of interest Interest that may affect impartiality Extent of Interest Cmr Smith is one of the City’s delegates on the Mindarie Regional

Council. Name/Position Cmr A Fox Item No/Subject CJ272-12/05 – Lot 118 Mindarie – Proposed Lease Amendment

with Mindarie Regional Council Nature of interest Interest that may affect impartiality Extent of Interest Cmr Fox stated she is one of the City’s delegates on the Mindarie

Regional Council, however she would deal impartiality with this matter.


Name/Position Cmr A Fox Item No/Subject CJ273-12/05 - Tender 026-05/06 Installation and modification of


Nature of interest Interest that may affect impartiality Extent of Interest The intersection of Hepburn Avenue/Gibson Avenue, Padbury is in

close proximity to where Cmr Fox resides. Name/Position Mr Garry Hunt – Chief Executive Officer Item No/Subject CJ273-12/05 - Tender 026-05/06 Installation and modification of


Nature of interest Interest that may affect impartiality Extent of Interest The recommended tenderer is part of a conglomerate with which

Mr Hunt had an association. Name/Position Mr Peter Hoar - Coordinator Waste Management and

Environmental Services Item No/Subject CJ277-12/05 – Waste Management Strategy Review 2005 Nature of interest Interest that may affect impartiality Extent of Interest Mr Hoar is under consideration by the Mindarie Regional Council to

attend an overseas trip relating to waste management. Name/Position Cmr S Smith Item No/Subject CJ278-12/05 - Land Request for Proposed Community House in

Craigie, Lot 671 (178) Camberwarra Drive (Corner of Perilya Road) Nature of interest Interest that may affect impartiality Extent of Interest Cmr Smith advised funding for this community house was originally

destined for Currambine, and her daughter lives in Currambine. Name/Position Cmr S Smith Item No/Subject CJ287-12/05 - Review of Discussion Paper on New Public Health

Act Nature of interest Interest that may affect impartiality Extent of Interest Cmr Smith undertakes contract work for WALGA.

Name/Position Cmr S Smith Item No/Subject CJ294-12/05 – Response to the Request for Submissions by the

Public Accounts Committee on the Inquiry into Local Government Accountability in Western Australia

Nature of interest Interest that may affect impartiality Extent of Interest Cmr Smith undertakes contract work for WALGA.

Name/Position Mr Peter Schneider – Acting Director, Infrastructure Services Item No/Subject C70-12/05 – Minutes of the CEO Performance Review Committee

Meeting held on 13 October 2005 and 14 November 2005 Nature of interest Interest that may affect impartiality Extent of Interest Due to nature of employment relationship with the CEO


To a query raised by Cmr Clough in relation to Item C73-12/05 – Review of Ward Names, Boundaries and Elected Member Representation as to whether he should declare an impartiality interest in view of the fact he is a resident of the City, Chief Executive Officer stated it was for Cmr Clough to determine. Cmr Clough would share an interest with every other elector of the City, but if he wished it placed on record, it would be appropriate that he do so. Name/Position Cmr P Clough Item No/Subject C73-12/05 – Review of Ward Names, Boundaries and Elected

Member Representation Nature of interest Interest that may affect impartiality Extent of Interest Cmr Clough resides in the City of Joondalup. Cmr Clough stated

he would act impartially in relation to this matter. Name/Position Cmr A Fox Item No/Subject C73-12/05 – Review of Ward Names, Boundaries and Elected

Member Representation Nature of interest Interest that may affect impartiality Extent of Interest Cmr Fox is a resident of the City of Joondalup. Cmr Fox stated she

would act impartially in relation to this matter. Name/Position Cmr S Smith Item No/Subject C73-12/05 – Review of Ward Names, Boundaries and Elected

Member Representation Nature of interest Interest that may affect impartiality Extent of Interest Cmr Smith is a landowner and eligible to be an elector in the City.

Name/Position Mr Garry Hunt – Chief Executive Officer Item No/Subject C74-12/05 - Business Excellence Framework Seminar Nature of interest Interest that may affect impartiality Extent of Interest Mr Hunt has indicated a desire to attend this Seminar.

In view of the fact the Business Excellence Framework Seminar has been cancelled, Mr Hunt advised he no longer has an impartiality interest. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES C67-12/05 MINUTES OF COUNCIL MEETING – 22 NOVEMBER 2005 MOVED Cmr Anderson, SECONDED Cmr Clough that the Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 22 November 2005, be confirmed as a true and correct record. The Motion was Put and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (5/0) C68-12/05 MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING OF COUNCIL – 6 DECEMBER

2005 MOVED Cmr Anderson, SECONDED Cr Smith that the Minutes of the Special Meeting of Council held on 6 December 2005, be confirmed as a true and correct record. The Motion was Put and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (5/0)


ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE CHAIRMAN WITHOUT DISCUSSION ELECTION, 6 MAY 2006 The Commissioners and I welcome the Minister’s announcement of an election on 6 May 2006, when Commissioners will be bale to hand back the City to an elected Council. I welcome the extension of our term until then as an opportunity to further consolidate stability. In our two years in office, Commissioners have:

Accepted the resignation of the former CEO; Appointed CEO, Garry Hunt; and Endorsed many measures to improve governance.

Commissioners have placed the City back on course in the shortest possible timeframe. We have put in place a 20-year strategic financial plan for the City which includes maintenance of assets. Commissioners have spelled out a solid course for a new Council to follow. I appeal to incoming Councillors to put the past behind them and concentrate on the future, and I urge residents to consider these elections very carefully. This is crucial if the City of Joondalup is to enjoy the very positive future it deserves. CRAIGIE LEISURE CENTRE A problem with the water temperature from the 800-metre deep geothermal bore has delayed the opening of Craigie Leisure Centre. It was hoped to open the Centre before Christmas, but the water being produced at the moment is not hot enough to heat the indoor pools. The delay is unfortunate, but the City needs to get everything just right, and once the technology is in place, money will be saved on heating costs for many years. The City is working on the problem with the builder and contractor and we will keep residents fully informed on progress. LOCAL GOVERNMENT AWARDS While on the subject of Craigie Leisure Centre, congratulations to all staff involved in the GOLD fitness program for the over 50’s. GOLD has just been highly commended in the National Heart Foundation/Kellogg Local Government Awards, following up on its overall win in the State awards. Fantastic recognition for a great program. CHRISTMAS This being the last Council meeting of the year, I would like to take the opportunity to wish all residents, and regular attendants of Council and their families a very Happy Christmas and New Year.


PETITIONS C69-12/05 PETITIONS SUBMITTED TO THE COUNCIL MEETING – 13

DECEMBER 2005 PETITION REQUESTING REMOVAL OF SHE-OAK TREES, KORELLA PARK AND GUNIDA PARK, MULLALOO AND REPLACEMENT WITH LOCAL SPECIES SHADY TREES - [07377] [49675] A 63-signature petition has been received from electors and ratepayers of the City of Joondalup requesting that the Council of the City of Joondalup: 1 remove the she-oak trees adjacent to the children’s sand/play grounds in Korella Park

and in Gunida Park, Mullaloo because their fruit cones are extremely painful to walk on barefoot, now posing a health safety hazard for the barefoot children;

2 replace with local species shady trees (eucalypts) positioned to provide shade in

summer for these play areas. This petition will be referred to Infrastructure Services for action. MOVED Cmr Anderson, SECONDED Cmr Fox that the petition requesting the removal of she-oak trees in Korella Park and Gunida Park, Mullaloo and replaced with local species shady trees be RECEIVED and referred to Infrastructure Services for action. The Motion was Put and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (5/0) CJ263 - 12/05 REVIEW OF LOCAL LAWS – [05885] WARD: All RESPONSIBLE Mr Garry Hunt DIRECTOR: Office of CEO CJ051206_BRF.DOC: ITEM 1 PURPOSE For the Council to give consideration to commencing a review of a number of its local laws in accordance with Section 3.16 of the Local Government Act 1995. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The local laws of the former City of Wanneroo became the local laws of the City of Joondalup on 1 July 1998 following its split. During 1998 and 1999 a concerted effort was undertaken to review the former local laws, which reduced the number of local laws from approximately thirty-five (35) to ten (10) modern local laws.


Section 3.16 of the Local Government Act 1995 requires the City of Joondalup to undertake a review of all of its local laws with a period of eight (8) years from the day in which the local law commenced. A majority of the revised local laws were gazetted in 1998 and 1999, which requires the statutory periodic review to be completed by 2006 and 2007. the review requires a legislated six (6) week public submission period. If following the periodic review, the Council determines that the local laws require amending or repealing, it must commence the process to do so in accordance with Section 3.12 of the Local Government Act 1995. It is therefore recommended that the Council, in accordance with Section 3.16 of the Local Government Act 1995 RESOLVED to undertake a periodic review of the following local laws: 1 Animal Local Law 1999 2 Bushfires Prevention and Control Local Law 1998 3 Extractive Industries Local Law 1998 4 Health Local Law 1999 5 Local Government and Public Property Local Law 6 Parking Local Law 1998 7 Private Property Local Law 1998 8 Signs Local Law 1999; and 9 Trading in Public Places Local Law 1999. BACKGROUND The local laws of the former City of Wanneroo became the local laws of the City of Joondalup on its creation on 1 July 1998. During 1998 and 1999 a concerted effort was undertaken to review the local laws of the former City of Wanneroo to ensure that the City of Joondalup had a revised set of enforceable and modern local laws. The review also saw the drastic reduction from approximately thirty-five (35) by-laws of the former City of Wanneroo to a far more manageable number of ten (10) local laws for the City of Joondalup. The following are the current local laws operated by the City of Joondalup:

Animal Local Law 1999 (gazetted 15 January 2002); Bushfires Prevention and Control Local Law 1998 (gazetted 8 January 1999); Extractive Industries Local Law 1998 (gazetted 8 March 1999); Health Local Law 1999 (gazetted 27 August 1999); Local Government and Public Property Local Law (gazetted 18 January 2000); Local Law S5 – Standing Orders (repealed by the Council at its meeting held on 22

November 2005); Parking Local Law 1998 (gazetted 9 November 1998); Private Property Local Law 1998 (gazetted 8 March 1998); Signs Local Law 1999 (gazetted 27 August 1999); and Trading in Public Places Local Law 1999 (gazetted 27 August 1999).

On 18 January 2000 a local law was gazetted on behalf of the City of Joondalup that repealed all of its obsolete local laws following the split from the former City of Wanneroo. These were as follows:

By Law B3: Relating to Building Lines, published in the Government Gazette - 16 January, 1963; By Law E1: Eating Houses, published in the Government Gazette – 12 August 1988; By Law H2: Holiday Accommodation No 18, published in the Government Gazette -

21 February, 1975;


By Law M3: Construction, Establishment, Operation and Maintenance of Motels, published in the Government Gazette - 27 October, 1960; By Law O1: Removal and Disposal of Obstructing Animals or Vehicles, published in

the Government Gazette – 29 August 1963; By Law O2: Old Refrigerators and Cabinets, published in the Government Gazette - 1

May, 1962; By Law P3: Pest Plants, published in the Government Gazette - 18 March, 1985; By Law R1: Deposit of Refuse and Litter, published in the Government Gazette - 12

April, 1967; By Law R2: Removal of Refuse and Rubbish, published in the Government Gazette -

20 July, 1979; By Law R4: Payment of Rates, published in the Government Gazette - 19 May, 1989; By Law R5: Removal of Refuse, Rubbish or Disused Material, published in the

Government Gazette - 21 December, 1990; By Law S1: Sewerage, published in the Government Gazette - 13 April 1973. By Law S4: Stallholders, published in the Government Gazette - 31 October 1986.

Since the gazettal of the revised local laws, two (2) amendment local laws have been gazetted that made various amendments to the local laws of the City of Joondalup. Amendment Local Law 2000 (gazetted 10 July 2000)

The purpose of this local law was to amend various clauses in the City of Joondalup Parking, Private Property, Signs, Animals, Trading in Public Places and Health Local laws, to remove difficulties identified in their application and better clarify the requirements of the local laws.

Amendment Local Law 2001 (gazetted 15 January 2002)

The purpose of this local law was to amend various clauses in the Parking, Private Property, Animals, Local Government and Public Property, Health and Bushfire Prevention and Control Local Laws to ensure information was current with prevailing legislation and better clarify the requirement of the local laws.

Since the Amendment Local Law 2001 that was gazetted on 15 January 2002, no further amendments have been made to the City’s local laws. DETAILS Issues and options considered: The Local Government Act 1995 places a statutory obligation on the City to conduct periodic reviews of its local laws. At the conclusion of the public submission period, the Council may determine to retain, repeal or amend any or all of its local laws. Amending a local law in accordance with Section 3.12 of the Local Government Act 1995 does not constitute a periodic review as required by Section 3.16 of the Local Government Act 1995.


Link to Strategic Plan: Outcomes:

The City of Joondalup is an interactive community. Objectives:

4.3 To ensure the City responds to and communicates with the community.

Strategies:

4.3.3 Provide fair and transparent decision-making processes.

Legislation – Statutory Provisions: Section 3.16 of the Local Government Act 1995 states: 3.16 Periodic review of local laws

(1) Within a period of 8 years from the day when a local law commenced or a report of a review of the local law was accepted under this section, as the case requires, a local government is to carry out a review of the local law to determine whether or not it considers that it should be repealed or amended.

(2) The local government is to give Statewide public notice stating that:

(a) the local government proposes to review the local law; (b) a copy of the local law may be inspected or obtained at any place

specified in the notice; and (c) submissions about the local law may be made to the local government

before a day to be specified in the notice, being a day that is not less than 6 weeks after the notice is given.

(2a) A Notice under subsection (2) is also to be published and exhibited as if it

were a local public notice; (3) After the last day for submissions, the local government is to consider any

submissions made and cause a report of the review to be prepared and submitted to its council.

(4) When its council has considered the report, the local government may

determine* whether or not it considers that the local law should be repealed or amended.

* absolute majority required.

Following the completion of the review of the local law, if the Council determines that the local law is to be amended or repealed it must commence the process as required by Section 3.12 of the Local Government Act 1995, which states:

(1) In making a local law a local government is to follow the procedure described in this section, in the sequence in which it is described.

(2) At a Council meeting the person presiding is to give notice to the meeting of the purpose and effect of the proposed local law in the prescribed manner.


(3) The local government is to:

(a) give Statewide public notice stating that: (i) the local government proposes to make a local law the purpose

and effect of which is summarised in the notice; (ii) a copy of the proposed local law may be inspected or obtained

at any place specified in the notice; and (iii) submissions about the proposed local law may be made to the

local government before a day to be specified in the notice, being a day that is not less than 6 weeks after the notice is given;

(b) as soon as the notice is given, give a copy of the proposed local law

and a copy of the notice to the Minister and, if another Minister administers the Act under which the local law is proposed to be made, to that other Minister; and

(c) provide a copy of the proposed local law, in accordance with the

notice, to any person requesting it.

(3a) A notice under subsection (3) is also to be published and exhibited as if it were a local public notice.

(4) After the last day for submissions, the local government is to consider any

submissions made and may make the local law* as proposed or make a local law* that is not significantly different from what was proposed.

* absolute majority required.

(5) After making the local law, the local government is to publish it in the Gazette and give a copy of it to the Minister, and if another Minister administers the Act under which the local law is proposed to be made, to that other Minister.

(6) After the local law has been published in the Gazette the local government is

to give local public notice:

(a) stating the title of the local law; (b) summarising the purpose and effect of the local law(specifying the day

on which it comes into operations); and (c) advising that copies of the local law may be inspected or obtained from

the local government’s office.

(7) The Minister may give directions to local governments requiring them to provide to the Parliament copies of local laws they have made and any explanatory or other material relating to them.

(8) In this section:

“making” in relation to a local law, includes making a local law to amend the text of, or repeal, a local law.


Risk Management considerations: The risk associated with not undertaking the periodic reviews as required by the Local Government Act 1995 will result in the City of Joondalup being non-compliant with the legislation and may question the validity of the local law. Financial/Budget Implications:

Account No: 1.1320.3702.0001.9999 Budget Item: Advertising – Public Statutory Budget Amount: $10,000 YTD Amount: $4,433 Actual Cost: $500

The initial costs associated with the review as required by Section 3.16 of the Local Government Act 1995 are related to general advertising. Policy implications: Not applicable. Regional Significance: There is no regional significance as a result of undertaking the review, as the local laws are only applicable to the district of the City of Joondalup. Sustainability implications: A revised and current set of local laws for the City of Joondalup will greatly assist in the lifestyle for the residents of the City. Consultation: The level of consultation will be dictated by the requirements of the Local Government Act 1995. Advertising of the periodic review is by notice in the stateside and local newspapers and made available on the City’s website. COMMENT A number of amendments have been identified that are required to a number of local laws operated by the City. As previously indicated, any previous amendments made to a local law do not constitute a periodic review as required by Section 3.16 of the Local Government Act 1995. Prior to commencing the amendments to the local law under Section 3.12 of the Local Government Act 1995, it is considered appropriate to first undertake the required periodic reviews in accordance with Section 3.16 of the Local Government Act 1995. This is the most prudent process to follow given that a number of the local laws are scheduled to undertake the required periodic reviews as required by the legislation. Following the periodic review, the Council can then consider amending the local laws as a result of any changes suggested through the public submission period or as a result of recommendations from the Chief Executive Officer.


ATTACHMENTS Nil. The following Local Laws are available on the City’s website at: www.joondalup.wa.gov.au

Animal Local Law 1999 Bushfires Prevention and Control Local Law 1998 Extractive Industries Local Law 1998 Health Local Law 1999 Local Government and Public Property Local Law Parking Local Law 1998 Private Property Local Law 1998 Signs Local Law 1999; and Trading in Public Places Local Law 1999.

VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority MOVED Cmr Smith, SECONDED Cmr Fox that Council in accordance with Section 3.16 of the Local Government Act 1995 RESOLVES to undertake a period review of the following local laws: 1 Animal Local Law 1999 2 Bushfires Prevention and Control Local Law 1998 3 Extractive Industries Local Law 1998 4 Health Local Law 1999 5 Local Government and Public Property Local Law 6 Parking Local Law 1998 7 Private Property Local Law 1998 8 Signs Local Law 1999; and 9 Trading in Public Places Local Law 1999. The Motion was Put and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (5/0) CJ264 - 12/05 PROPOSAL FOR A NEW REGIONAL MODEL FOR

NORTH WEST METRO BUSINESS ENTERPRISE CENTRE (NWMBEC) – [03082] [53469]

WARD: All RESPONSIBLE Mr Garry Hunt DIRECTOR: Office of CEO CJ051206_BRF.DOC:ITEM 2 PURPOSE To seek Council endorsement to support the introduction of a new regional service delivery model for the Northwest Metro Business Enterprise Centre (NWMBEC) to be effective from 1 January 2006.


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Small business development has been a key element of economic growth in the northwest metropolitan region. The City of Joondalup has played an integral role in this growth through its ongoing support to organisations such as the Joondalup Business Association (JBA), the Joondalup Business Centre (JBC) (formerly the Incubator), the Joondalup Stakeholder Group and the North West Metro Business Enterprise Centre (NWMBEC). On 30 June 2005 the Minister for Small Business, announced that there would be a re-establishment of Business Enterprise Centre (BEC) within the State from January 2006. The proposed structure will result in the delivery of the BEC service through 26 centres, 7 within the metropolitan area and 19 within regional Western Australia. Some of the key outcomes arising from the proposed future structure are as follows:

• Reduces infrastructure and administrative costs; • Re-aligns facilitation capacity and resources to areas of existing and future high

demand; • More effectively integrates the BEC service within zones; • Increases the mobility of facilitation services throughout the network.

Since this announcement was made the stakeholders involved (being the City of Joondalup, City of Wanneroo, Joondalup Business Association and the Wanneroo Business Association) have held meetings to:

• Align the NWMBEC with the new directions articulated in the State Government review;

• To ensure that the NWMBEC will be strengthened as an outcome; and • To ensure that increased funding is delivered to this region.

To date the stakeholders have:

• Agreed upon a model; • Devised the best delivery mechanisms for the model; and • Agreed the way forward for small business service delivery in Joondalup and

Wanneroo. This report presents the history and performance of the existing NWMBEC to date and provides comparative information on other key metropolitan Business Enterprise Centres (BECs). It outlines the role of the Joondalup Business Association (JBA) in relation to the NWMBEC and the outlines the City’s current financial grant agreement with the JBA. The a new regional service delivery model for the NWMBEC is described which has been the subject of negotiations between the Cities of Joondalup and Wanneroo and the Joondalup , Wanneroo Business Associations. The report recommends that Council:


1 Subject to the successful negotiations by the Chief Executive Officer with the Joondalup Business Association to terminate by mutual agreement the existing funding arrangement relating to the North West Metro Business Enterprise Centre effective from 31 December 2005;

2 AGREES to the establishment of an independent incorporated body to manage a new

Business Enterprise Centre for the North West Region of Perth covering the Cities of Wanneroo and Joondalup;

3 NOMINATES a member of Council as its representative on the board of the new Business Enterprise Centre;

4 NOTES that funding for the period I January 2006 to 30 June 2006 was approved in

the 2005/6 budget process to account 1-2113–5399 –001-F402 to meet the purpose of provision of services to regional businesses under the Business Enterprise Centre

5 LISTS up to $55,000 for consideration in the draft Council Budget for 2006/2007,

subject to the new Business Enterprise Centre presenting to Council a Business Plan which shows how the funds will be allocated to support business development within the City of Joondalup;

6 NOTES that the new Business Enterprise Centre will need to develop funding models for at least its first three years of operations and that there is an expectation that the Cities of Joondalup and Wanneroo will provide ongoing funding support.

7 NOTES that the City of Wanneroo has agreed to contribute $30,000 for the 2005/6

financial year and will list a further $55,000 for the 2006/7 financial year; 8 REQUESTS a review of the effectiveness of the new proposed Business Enterprise

Centre after twelve (12) months from the date of establishment. BACKGROUND Small business development has been a key element of economic growth in the northwest metropolitan region. The City of Joondalup has played an integral role in this growth through its ongoing support to organisations such as the JBA, the Joondalup Business Centre (JBC) (formerly the Incubator), the Joondalup Stakeholder Group and the NWMBEC. The Joondalup Business Association Inc. is a non-government not for profit association that was established in the 1990s with the aim to represent small business owners within the City of Joondalup to Federal, State and Local Governments. The NWMBEC was established prior to 1996 and the then Parent Body was called the 'Regional Economic Development Committee'. In 1996 the name was changed to the Wanneroo BEC Inc. and in 1999 the name changed to 'NWMBEC Inc.' In 2001 the SBDC (the funding body) and the JBA established a new agreement that would deliver funding to the JBA, under which the JBA would take on the role of managing the NWMBEC1. The JBA in late 2001 approached the City of Joondalup to further support the NWMBEC by way of a 3-year funding agreement that would provide for a greater level of servicing to the Joondalup area.

1 Source: SBDC November 2005


At its meeting of 12 February 2002, Council CJ008 - 02/02 resolved to approve funding assistance for the North West Metropolitan Business Enterprise Centre (NWMBEC) in the form of a three-year Service Agreement. The amount approved by Council was $50,000 per annum for three financial years from 2001/02 to 2003/04 indexed to the consumer price index (CPI). The resolution of Council was as follows: That Council, subject to funding in the half-yearly Budget Review for 2001/02: 1 NOMINATES Councillor C Baker and Deputies Councillors P Kadak and C

Mackintosh to the North West Metropolitan Business Enterprise Centre Committee of Management;

2 APPROVES the allocation of $50,000 per annum (plus GST and indexed to CPI) for a

period of three years commencing in the financial year 2001/2002 subject those funds being directed to Business Enterprise Centre activities within the City of Joondalup;

3 AUTHORISES the signing of a Service Agreement between the City of Joondalup

and the North West Metro Business Enterprise Centre for a period of three years commencing in the financial year 2001/02.

In February 2004 the JBA, as the body corporate managing the NWMBEC, proposed that the City consider a further three-year arrangement commencing 1 July 2004. The proposal requested Council to fund $55,000 per year indexed to the CPI for the provision of BEC services, subject to agreed performance standards. At its meeting on 17 February 2004 Council resolved to: 1 Consider the provision of a grant of $55,000 (plus GST and indexed to CPI) per

annum for financial years 2004/05 to 2006/07 to the Joondalup Business Association (JBA) in its provision of services to regional businesses under the Business Enterprise Centre (BEC) Project;

2 Agree the key performance indicators be developed and reported for the project that

encompass but are not limited to the following: a) New clients; b) New business start-ups; c) Full-time & casual jobs created; d) Casual enquiries; and e) Client assists;

3 Request the key performance indicators outlined in 2 above be provided on a

quarterly basis that provides number of clients serviced that are based: a) Within the City of Joondalup; b) Within the City of Wanneroo; and c) Elsewhere in Metropolitan Perth or Western Australia;

4 Add an additional condition for the 2004/05 to 2006/07 Service Agreement with the

JBA for the provision of BEC services include the submitting of an audited statement of BEC activities that are separate from audited Joondalup Business Association (JBA) financial statements;

5 Lists for consideration for 2004/05, 2005/06 and 2006/07 budget proposals for

funding the Joondalup Business Association (JBA) for an amount totalling $55,000 per annum indexed to the prevailing Consumer Price Index (CPI);

6 Authorises the signing of a Service Agreement between the City of Joondalup and the

North West Metro Business Enterprise Centre for a period of three years commencing n the financial year 2004/05;


Business Enterprise Centres in Western Australia Prior to the new regional service delivery model the SBDC supported a network of 37 independent Business Enterprise Centres (BECs). Each centre had a management committee with representatives from business, public sector organisations and local government in support of the BEC Manager. BECs offer free assistance and support to new and existing businesses through the following services: • Free practical business assistance; • Referral to specialist advisers (accountants, lawyers, etc.); • Assistance through the maze of government departments and regulations; • Business workshops; • Business information; and • Problem solving. In addition to operational grants from the State Government, the BEC network attracts support from Local Government with contributions that totalled $201,600 cash in 2004/05. Local Government support for the BECs in Metropolitan Perth during 2004/05 is as follows: BEC Office Cash In Kind Belmont BEC $20,000 Coastal BEC (Fremantle) $3,000 Gosnells-Armadale BEC $25,600 North West Metro BEC (Joondalup) $55,000 $4,400 Rockingham BEC $30,000 South East Metro BEC (Welshpool) $10,000 Stirling BEC (amalgamated with Malaga) $28,000 Subiaco BEC $15,000 Swan Region BEC (Midland) $15,000 $2,500 Total Metropolitan $201,600 $6,900

Note the level of funding to the NWMBEC is higher than other Councils and this is considered reasonable given that the region is experiencing rapid growth and expansion. Joondalup Business Association The JBA Inc is a non-government, not for profit community-based organisation that works within the Perth North West Metropolitan Region to create jobs, assist business development and foster economic growth. The JBA is and continues to be the sponsoring organisation for the NWMBEC. As an incorporated body (A1006411U), the JBA has approximately 300 members who are situated within or operate business activities within the North West Metropolitan region. The Business Enterprise Centre Project (2004/05 to 2006/07) The ‘Business Enterprise Centre Project’ relates to the 2004/05 - 2006/07 Financial Grant Agreement between the City and the Joondalup Business Association (see Attachment 1). The Project has the following objectives:

• To maximise the creation of employment opportunities by facilitating the establishment of new business start ups within the North West Metropolitan Region; and

• To encourage and facilitate the development and broadening of the economic base within the North West Metropolitan Region.


The strategies implemented to achieve the above objectives are as follows:

• Provide facilitation resources and guidance for prospective new businesses proprietors in marketing, business planning, finance, market research, trade information, regulations, licensing and a full range of business improvement services;

• Support new business starters with a range of practical resources and facilities

including seminars, library facilities, computer facilities, provision of Small Business Smart Business Training Vouchers and referral to appropriate professional services;

• To facilitate and coordinate the conduct of training and development courses,

seminars and workshops for small business in the region; and

• To facilitate and administer the Small Business Mentoring Scheme in the region. The outcomes expected for the Business Enterprise Centre Project include increased economic activity generated through the development of new businesses and the creation of new employment as the result of newly established and expanding enterprises. Key performance indicators agreed for the project (see Attachment 2) include the following:

• Number of new business start-ups; • The number of new jobs created; • The number of Training Vouchers requested and issued (subject to continued funding

of the scheme by the Department of Employment and Training); and • Numbers of seminars and workshops facilitated together with attendance statistics.

To date the NWMBEC has reported on all its agreed key performance indicators. The City has received regular performance reports and these reports are reviewed by the City upon receipt on a monthly basis following Board meetings of the NWMBEC. NWMBEC Performance over 2004/05 The following information of the financial performance of the NWMBEC for the 2004-5 year extracted from the Annual Report 2004-5 of Joondalup business Association as the sponsor of the North West Metro Business Enterprise Centre. The Annual report is shown in full as Attachment 1. During 2004/05 the NWMBEC experienced a downturn in the number of new clients and client assists compared to last year, although numbers still exceeded those recorded in the years preceding 2003/04. An analysis of the NWMBEC performance is provided in Attachment 1. In 2004/5 the Business Enterprise Centre had a net loss of $20,474.90, with income of $158,751.02 and expenses of $179,225.92. This income includes $55,000 payed by the City. The BEC was able to offset the $20,474.90 net loss with its retained earnings of $20,793.13, leaving $318.23 in accumulated funds/total company equity for 2004/05. The $318.23 of accumulated funds at the end of 2004/05 represents a significant drop from the $29,974 accumulated funds at the end of the previous 2003/2004 year (see Attachment 1 for further financial details).


Full details of Council involvement with the NWMBEC to date can be found in the following reports previously submitted to Council:

• CJ008 – 02/02 Service Agreement with North West Metropolitan Business Enterprise Centre Located at Unit 4/189 lakeside Drive, Joondalup; and

• CJ008 – 02/04 Joondalup Business Association request for a service agreement

supporting the North West Metropolitan Business Enterprise Centre (NWMBEC) – Small Business Funding Project for three years commencing 1 July 2004.

DETAILS Issues and options considered: New Service Delivery Model for BECs On the 30 June 2005 the Minister for Small Business, announced that there would be a re-establishment of BECs within the State from early 2006. The possibility of a name change to BECs to help re-brand the service was also announced. The proposed structure will result in the delivery of the BEC service through 26 centres, 7 within the metropolitan area and 19 within regional Western Australia. Core funding to the Network will increase from $2.28M to $2.83M in the first full year of operation. In addition, the SBDC will distribute a further $185,000 of capital funding to the network. Responsibility for a number of key functions currently undertaken by the SBDC’s BEC Support Unit will also be transferred to the network. Some of the key outcomes arising from the proposed future structure are as follows:

• Reduces infrastructure and administrative costs; • Re-aligns facilitation capacity and resources to areas of existing and future high

demand; • More effectively integrates the BEC service within zones; • Increases the mobility of facilitation services throughout the network.

The proposed core operational funding to contracted BECs with specific reference to the Perth Metropolitan area is as follows:

Proposed Locations for Perth Metropolitan BECs Location Funding Swan (based in Midland) $100,000 North West Metro $120,000 Belmont (TCF Enterprise) $90,000 Stirling $120,000 East Metro based in Gosnells/Armadale $120,000 South Metro based in Rockingham $100,000 Coastal based in Fremantle $100,000 Total $750,000

The location of the NWMBEC, currently situated in Joondalup, will be subject to mutual agreement between the Cities of Wanneroo and Joondalup, and other key stakeholders, to ensure that the future needs of small businesses in the northern corridor are adequately addressed. The BECs at Malaga and Stirling have agreed to merge and form one organisation that will service their area.


The area currently serviced by the South East Metro BEC based in Welshpool will now be serviced through the BECs located in Midland and Gosnells/Armadale. The Belmont BEC will have an emphasis on the Textile, Clothing and Footwear industries, however, it will still provide the full range of BEC services to clients within the Belmont area. The Stirling BEC will take on a co-ordination role for the zone in the first year and will be allocated $15,000 for this. In preparing the State Government’s report, the SBDC analysed all submissions received as part of the review, sourced information on small business activity and growth from local governments and utilised its own knowledge of the Network in determining a model which will ensure that the small business sector of Western Australia receives a consistent and effective service. Since this announcement was made the stakeholders involved (being the City of Joondalup, City of Wanneroo, Joondalup Business Association and the Wanneroo Business Association) have held meetings to:

• Align the NWMBEC with the new directions articulated in the State Government review;

• To ensure that the NWMBEC will be strengthened as an outcome; and • To ensure that increased funding is delivered to this region.

To date the stakeholders have:

• Agreed upon a model; • Devised the best delivery mechanisms for the model; and • Agreed the way forward for small business service delivery in Joondalup and

Wanneroo. The stakeholders in their deliberations agreed upon key principles as follows:

• Acknowledgement that the current BEC arrangement would cease on 31 December 2005, and that new arrangements needed to be in place prior to 1 January 2006;

• An independent board (through an incorporated body) to be set up to run the new

BEC and a constitution is developed; • Membership of the board is as follows:

Three Wanneroo Business Association (or nominated representatives) Three Joondalup Business Association (or nominated representatives) One City of Wanneroo representative One City of Joondalup representative Three Independent Members (selected by the board following advertising)

• The Chair of the Board would be elected by the board and come from within the

group; • Two separate BEC offices are to be set up, one in the City of Wanneroo and one in

the City of Joondalup; • Two facilitators are to be appointed of equal status. Their pay would be determined

by their qualifications and experience; • Administration would be shared between two offices;


• The Cities of Wanneroo and Joondalup would be requested to make annual contributions based on business plans with performance indicators; and

• Board meetings could be held alternately between the Wanneroo and Joondalup office locations.

As outlined in detail in the background to this report the City of Joondalup currently has a 3-year funding arrangement in effect with the JBA and this agreement would need to be terminated and replaced by a new agreement under the new BEC model being proposed. These discussions with the JBA have not yet occurred and will need to take place in the near future. The Financial Grant Agreement can be seen at Attachment 2). City of Wanneroo Commitment It should be noted that the establishment of the new regional BEC will be a collaboration. The City of Wanneroo at its meeting on 11 October 2005 unanimously and by absolute majority carried the following resolutions: 1 AGREES to the establishment of an independent incorporated body to manage a new


2 NOMINATES BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY, Cr Roberts as its representative on the

board of the new Business Enterprise Centre; 3 CONFIRMS its requirement for the establishment of a Wanneroo Business Enterprise

Centre Office with a full-time coordinator at the Wanneroo Business Grow Centre at 935 Wanneroo Road;

4 Pursuant to Section 6.8(1)(b) of the Local Government Act 1995, APPROVES BY AN

ABSOLUTE MAJORITY expenditure of up to $30,000 including the rental and operational cost associated with the Wanneroo BEC office as its initial contribution in the 2005/06-budget year to allow the operations of the Business Enterprise Centre to commence;

5 NOTES the expenditure by Council of $7,000 to establish a Business Enterprise Centre office as part of the overall set up costs for the Wanneroo Business Grow Centre;

6 NOTES the following budget variation to give affect to 4 above:

GL No From To Description 02101.0001.1301 $23,000 Grants Commission – GP Grant 52105.0001.4230 $23,000 Wanneroo Business Enterprise Centre.

7 LISTS up to $55,000 for consideration in the draft Council Budget for 2006/2007,subject to the new Business Enterprise Centre presenting to Council a Business Plan which shows how the funds will be allocated to support business development within the City of Wanneroo;

8 NOTES that the new Business Enterprise Centre will need to develop funding models

for at least its first three years of operations and that there is an expectation that the Cities of Wanneroo and Joondalup will provide ongoing funding support.


Link to Strategic Plan: Key Focus Area 3 – City Development Outcome: The City of Joondalup is recognised for investment and business

development opportunities. Objective 3.5: To provide and maintain sustainable economic development Strategy 3.5.1 Develop partnerships with stakeholders to foster business

development opportunities Strategy 3.5.2 Assist the facilitation of local employment opportunities Legislation – Statutory Provisions: Sections 5.8, 5.9 and 5.10 of the Local Government Act 1995 provide Council with the power to introduce Committees and appoint council members, employees and other persons as representatives to serve on these Committees. The Joondalup Business Association Inc. is an Incorporated Association under the Associations Incorporations Act and the NWMBEC is sponsored by the JBA. The Wanneroo Business Association Inc. is an incorporated Association under the Associations Incorporations Act. Risk Management considerations: Ethical Risks The new proposed model for the North West Metropolitan BEC will be reliant upon the ongoing collaboration and teamwork between the various stakeholders of Joondalup and Wanneroo. The new proposed BEC Board of Management will need to act in a regionally focused manner in all aspects of their role. The constitution of the new corporate body will need to reflect its regional role and values of cooperation in its key driving principles. Project Risks The new BEC must be established by January 2006, in order maintain service delivery and to received its full funding potential from the Sate Government. Timing is critical and the project must be managed efficiently in order to meet this timeframe. Project partners must also work effectively in order to implement the new model. Funding Risks In its 2005/06 budget deliberations the City has approved a $55,000 budget in line with its funding agreement that commits the City to annual funding up until June 2007. To date the City has made a pro rata payment of $28,000 for the 2005-6 year for the period covering July to December 2005. This pro rata payment was done intentionally given the pending changes that were occurring.


The City of Joondalup will need to hold discussions with the JBA in order to dissolve the previous 3-year service agreement which is still a legally binding document and make arrangements for a new agreement with the parties forming the new independent incorporated body who will take over the management of the funds to the new BEC. The current Financial Grant Agreement includes a provision for the termination of the grant under section 4 ‘Termination’. Financial/Budget Implications:

Account No: 1-2130-5399- 0001-F402 Budget Item: Funding Agreement North West metro BEC Budget Amount: $55000 YTD Amount: $28,160 Actual Cost: $28,160

Policy implications: The BEC project has a general connection to Policy 2.1: - Environmental, Social and Economic Sustainability Policy and Policy 3.3: - Centres Strategy. Regional Significance: The new model for BEC proposed in this report has critical regional significance. The funding that will be injected into the region will be doubled and the partnership between the City of Wanneroo and City of Joondalup will provide a new model that will ultimately see the two Cities working much closer on regional economic development outcomes. The NWMBEC is the only centre in the Northwest Metro Region and by broadening its capacity to deliver more services to both the Cities of Joondalup and Wanneroo it will inevitably be of great benefit to small businesses existing or planning to locate in the region. Sustainability implications: The WA State Sustainability Strategy defines 'sustainable development' to be simultaneous improvement in the environment, society and economy. Of the three elements of sustainability, the North West Business Centre mainly works to improve the economy. The BEC's focus is primarily on supporting small businesses, which in turn contributes to a sustainable economy and vibrant business environment. The BEC helps to improve 'society' by supporting local employment, and can enhance social capital and social connections by linking small business operators to important networks, such as the local business associations and home based business network. Regional cooperation is a key requisite for successful regional economies, and successful cooperation between the two cities on this project will send a positive signal to both potential external investors and the business community that the North West Metropolitan Region has a positive business environment. Regional cooperation also supports the development of a 'culture of innovation' in the region, which is crucial to the success of urban economies in the new emerging knowledge driven economy.


Consultation: Extensive consultation between the City of Wanneroo, the Small Business Development Corporation, the Joondalup Business Association and the Wanneroo Business Association has taken place over the past 4 months since the state government announced the new proposed funding structure for the Business Enterprise Network of Western Australia. COMMENT The newly agreed management structure appears to offer the level of integration and autonomy required by the cities of Wanneroo and Joondalup for the two locations to succeed. If funding is made available to allow for the employment of two full-time administrators to assist in running the offices, then the model has a strong chance of success. A major advantage of the new offices will be their ability to constantly monitor areas of demand for small business assistance. The flexible structure will allow the offices to pre-empt and predict areas of future demand, and resource for that demand appropriately. It is expected that different demand levels in different small business sectors will need greater assistance from time to time. The new BEC service across Joondalup and in Wanneroo will play an important role in the growth strategies for a region demanding high employment-producing outcomes. The new service will also significantly add to the overall competitiveness of Perth as a producer of high quality services and net exporter of goods, services and intellectual capital. Should Council agree to the new BEC model final approval would be sought from the State Government including a guarantee of their ongoing funding to the new BEC. The City would assist in the establishment of the new BEC association as an incorporated body. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 North West Metro Business Enterprise Centre Annual Report 2004-2005. Attachment 2 City of Joondalup and Joondalup Business Association Financial Grant

Agreement. VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION: That Council: 1 SUBJECT to the successful negotiations by the Chief Executive Officer with the

Joondalup Business Association to terminate by mutual agreement the existing funding arrangement relating to the North West Metro Business Enterprise Centre effective from 31 December 2005;

2 AGREES to the establishment of an independent incorporated body to manage a new



3 NOMINATES a member of Council as its representative on the board of the new Business Enterprise Centre;

4 NOTES that funding for the period I January 2006 to 30 June 2006 was approved in

the 2005/6 budget process to account 1-2113–F402 to meet the purpose of provision of services to regional businesses under the Business Enterprise Centre;

5 LISTS up to $55,000 for consideration in the draft Council Budget for 2006/2007,

subject to the new Business Enterprise Centre presenting to Council a Business Plan which shows how the funds will be allocated to support business development within the City of Joondalup;

6 NOTES that the new Business Enterprise Centre will need to develop funding models for at least its first three years of operations and that there is an expectation that the Cities of Joondalup and Wanneroo will provide ongoing funding support;

7 NOTES that the City of Wanneroo has agreed to contribute $30,000 for the 2005/6

financial year and will list a further $55,000 for the 2006/7 financial year; 8 REQUESTS a review of the effectiveness of the new proposed Business Enterprise

Centre after twelve (12) months from the date of establishment. MOVED Cmr Anderson, SECONDED Cmr Fox that: 1 Council SUBJECT to the successful negotiations by the Chief Executive Officer

with the Joondalup Business Association to terminate by mutual agreement the existing funding arrangement relating to the North West Metro Business Enterprise Centre effective from 31 December 2005;

2 Council AGREES to the establishment of an independent incorporated body to

manage a new Business Enterprise Centre for the North West Region of Perth covering the Cities of Wanneroo and Joondalup;

3 Council NOMINATES a member of Council as its representative on the board of the new Business Enterprise Centre;

4 Council NOTES that funding for the period I January 2006 to 30 June 2006 was

approved in the 2005/6 budget process to account 1-2113–F402 to meet the purpose of provision of services to regional businesses under the Business Enterprise Centre;

5 Council LISTS up to $55,000 for consideration in the draft Council Budget for

2006/2007, subject to the new Business Enterprise Centre presenting to Council a Business Plan which shows how the funds will be allocated to support business development within the region comprising the Cities of Joondalup and Wanneroo;

6 Council NOTES that the new Business Enterprise Centre will need to develop funding models for at least its first three years of operations and that there is an expectation that the Cities of Joondalup and Wanneroo will provide ongoing funding support;

7 Council NOTES that the City of Wanneroo has agreed to contribute $30,000 for

the 2005/6 financial year and will list a further $55,000 for the 2006/7 financial year;


8 Council REQUESTS a review of the effectiveness of the new proposed Business Enterprise Centre after twelve (12) months from the date of establishment, in terms of:

(a) overall service delivery; (b) appropriateness of locations; (c) appropriateness and effectiveness of a two-office service model; 9 all business and contractual arrangements for officers be in accordance with

normal business arrangements and market rates as applicable. Cmr Anderson sought clarification of additional information that had been provided to Commissioners to the effect that the BEC currently pays a rental at almost twice the current Joondalup City Centre rate. Chief Executive Officer advised he had been unable to satisfactorily verify the statements made, and as a result no additional information has been included. In relation to progressing, CEO stated it would be appropriate for the Council to ensure that all business arrangements are in accordance with market trends. AMENDMENT MOVED Cmr Smith, SECONDED Cmr Fox that Point 3 be amended to read: “3 NOMINATES Cmr Anderson as its representative on the board of the new

Business Enterprise Centre;” The Amendment was Put and CARRIED (5/0) The Original Motion as amended, being: That: 1 Council SUBJECT to the successful negotiations by the Chief Executive Officer

with the Joondalup Business Association to terminate by mutual agreement the existing funding arrangement relating to the North West Metro Business Enterprise Centre effective from 31 December 2005;

2 Council AGREES to the establishment of an independent incorporated body to

manage a new Business Enterprise Centre for the North West Region of Perth covering the Cities of Wanneroo and Joondalup;

3 NOMINATES Cmr Anderson as its representative on the board of the new Business Enterprise Centre;

4 Council NOTES that funding for the period I January 2006 to 30 June 2006 was

approved in the 2005/6 budget process to account 1-2113–F402 to meet the purpose of provision of services to regional businesses under the Business Enterprise Centre;

5 Council LISTS up to $55,000 for consideration in the draft Council Budget for

2006/2007, subject to the new Business Enterprise Centre presenting to Council a Business Plan which shows how the funds will be allocated to support business development within the region comprising the Cities of Joondalup and Wanneroo;


6 Council NOTES that the new Business Enterprise Centre will need to develop funding models for at least its first three years of operations and that there is an expectation that the Cities of Joondalup and Wanneroo will provide ongoing funding support;

7 Council NOTES that the City of Wanneroo has agreed to contribute $30,000 for

the 2005/6 financial year and will list a further $55,000 for the 2006/7 financial year;

8 Council REQUESTS a review of the effectiveness of the new proposed

Business Enterprise Centre after twelve (12) months from the date of establishment, in terms of:

(a) overall service delivery; (b) appropriateness of locations; (c) appropriateness and effectiveness of a two-office service model; 9 all business and contractual arrangements for officers be in accordance with

normal business arrangements and market rates as applicable. was Put and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (5/0) Appendix 1 refers To access this attachment on electronic document, click here: Attach1brf061205.pdf Disclosure of interest affecting impartiality Name/Position Cmr S Smith Item No/Subject CJ265-12/05 – Response to the WALGA Review of the

Representational and Structural Effectiveness of WALGA Zones Nature of interest Interest that may affect impartiality Extent of Interest Cmr Smith undertakes contract work for WALGA.

CJ265 - 12/05 RESPONSE TO THE WALGA REVIEW OF THE

REPRESENTATIONAL AND STRUCTURAL EFFECTIVENESS OF WALGA ZONES – [00033]

WARD: All RESPONSIBLE Mr Garry Hunt DIRECTOR: Office of CEO CJ051206_BRF.DOC:ITEM 3 PURPOSE This report is for Council to consider the response to the WALGA Review of the Representational and Structural Effectiveness of WALGA Zones.

Attach1brf061205.pdf


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Western Australian Local Government Association (WALGA) is an independent, membership-based group representing and supporting the work and the interests of 144 Local Governments statewide. The Association is not a government body. The Association frequently requests feedback from local governments on matters of policy, legislative amendment, and structural change. On many occasions, the City has provided comment to WALGA on these matters. Recently, WALGA requested comment from local governments on the review that it conducted on the representational and structural effectiveness of WALGA zones. Local governments are required to have their submissions sent to WALGA by late January 2006. A meeting of the North Metropolitan Zone is scheduled for 1 December 2005. BACKGROUND The City has received requests from WALGA on a number of occasions for feedback on matters that include amendments to the Local Government Act 1995 and associated regulations, the most recent of these has been feedback on the WALGA Review of the Representational and Structural Effectiveness of WALGA Zones. The WALGA State Council had established a Zone Review Working Group to review the draft report that was prepared concerning the review of the representational and structural effectiveness of Zones, and to investigate and develop optional models for reforming the WALGA representational structure. DETAILS The Review Report deals with seven major recommendations and a proposed reform to the WALGA Representational Structure that were agreed to by the Zone Roundtable on 9 August 2005. In response to the seven recommendations agreed to they are relatively minor. The City’s proposed position is as follows –

1 All Zones are to elect their representative to the WALGA State Council. Response - Agree with this recommendation.

2 Zones may take on additional functions at their own initiative. Such decisions

should be made by Zones autonomously and in consultation with their respective Member Councils. The Association has and should continue to assist Zones in determining their strategic direction when requested. Response - Agree with the recommendation.

3 Proposals for changes in membership to Zones should only be considered

where they are put forward by the relevant Member Councils. Response - Agree with the recommendation.

4 Principle of equality in representation of all Member Councils at Zones (ie

number of voting delegates per council) is endorsed. Response - The principle is agreed.

5 WALGA consider initiatives to enhance connection with its membership which

include:

5.1 Annual Zone Forum – Each zone may convene an annual forum to draw members together to consider a topical issue or range of issues, provide elected member development opportunities, consider policy issues for presentation to the State Council and for networking.


Response - Agree in principle as it is not an obligatory requirement and allows for greater participation on regional issues between the Zone members.

5.2 Biennial Tour – At least once in each biennial period between Local Government elections, WALGA should undertake to visit each Zone. Response - Agree in principle, as it is an opportunity to discuss issues with WALGA in a direct forum. It is however, a principle better suited to country Zones.

5.3 State Council Regional Meetings – The Association should consider the capacity to increase the frequency of these meetings. Response - Agree with the recommendation.

5.4 Policy Forums – Provide a greater number of Policy Forums as a means of bringing Member Councils together on the basis of common interests to participate in policy review or development for Local Government as a sector. Response - Agree with the recommendation. WALGA as stated should establish a policy framework, which outlines how forums are to be structured and resourced, establish the purpose, membership eligibility, meeting frequency, meeting location, servicing by WALGA, and financing before any initiative is adopted.

5.5 State Council Agenda – Consideration should be given to the feasibility of circulating the State Council agenda to all Member Councils in time to allow consideration by members and to provide input to WALGA, prior to the agenda being considered by State Council. Response - Agree on the proviso that the agenda can be circulated in a timely manner. May become a cumbersome process.

5.6 Obtaining Member Input – Association to consider initiatives to enhance how Member Councils can input effectively into the WALGA agenda. Response - Agree with enhancing discussion between WALGA and the member councils.

6.0 Regional Cooperation

6.1 Smaller focused groups such as Voluntary Regional Organisations of Councils or Regional Local Governments are to be encouraged. Response - Agree as this is useful for country councils.

6.2 WALGA consider the suggestion that the Association develop a resource to assist Member Councils that are contemplating forming a regional organisation Response - the recommendation is useful for smaller regional council and where issues of boundary sharing may occur.

6.3 WALGA consider developing a strategy for cooperation with regional groups. Response - Agree in principle.


7.0 Reform of the WALGA Representational Structure

7.1 The Modified Existing Model from the optional reform models contained within the report is endorsed by the Zone Roundtable.

7.2 The optional reform models to be circulated to Member Councils and

Zones for consideration, with attention drawn to the preference given by the Zone Roundtable to adopting the Modified Existing Model.

With regard to recommendation seven, the City has agreed with the Zone Roundtable that if an amended model is to be adopted the preferred model is the modified existing model due to the fact that the North Metropolitan Zone does not lose the representation at State Council. Issues and options considered: Not Applicable. Link to Strategic Plan: To provide the City of Joondalup with strong and accountable government that strives to attain best practice. Legislation – Statutory Provisions: Not Applicable. Risk Management considerations: Not Applicable. Financial/Budget Implications: Not Applicable. Policy implications: Not Applicable. Regional Significance: Not Applicable. Sustainability Implications: Not Applicable. Consultation: Nil. COMMENT It is recommended that the City adopt as the preferred model the modified existing model as contained in the WALGA Review of the Representational and Structural Effectiveness of WALGA Zones and as summarised in the Response Paper, due to the fact that the North Metropolitan Zone does not lose the representation at State Council.


ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 The Response to the WALGA Review of the Representational and

Structural Effectiveness of WALGA Zones. VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority MOVED Cmr Anderson, SECONDED Cmr Clough that Council ADOPTS the response to the WALGA Review of the Representational And Structural Effectiveness of WALGA Zones as contained in Attachment 1 to Report CJ265-12/05. Cmr Anderson spoke to the Motion. The Motion was Put and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (5/0) Appendix 2 refers To access this attachment on electronic document, click here: Attach2brf061205.pdf CJ266 - 12/05 REPORT ON THE COSTS AWARDED TO THE CITY

IN THE MATTER OF THE MULLALOO PROGRESS ASSOCIATION AND THE CITY OF JOONDALUP AND RENNET PTY LTD CIV 1285 OF 2003 – [02089]

WARD: All RESPONSIBLE Mr Garry Hunt DIRECTOR: Office of CEO CJ051206_BRF.DOC:ITEM 4 PURPOSE This report deals with the $60,978.12 taxed costs awarded to the City in the Matter of the Mullaloo Progress Association and the City of Joondalup and Rennet Pty Ltd Supreme Court Action CIV 1285 of 2003. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report considers a series of options available to the City in relation to the taxed costs owed to it by the Mullaloo Progress Association. While it is for the Council to determine the most appropriate course of action in relation to this issue, it is recommended that Council resolves not to pursue the opportunity to obtain costs against the Mullaloo Progress Association for the taxed amount of $60,978.12 subject to the MPA acknowledging the significant costs that have been incurred by the ratepayers as a result of their unsuccessful action.



BACKGROUND The Mullaloo Progress Association commenced an action in the Supreme Court of Western Australia in relation to the Tavern Redevelopment. The Mullaloo Progress Association Inc objected to the proposed development and was the applicant in the proceedings CIV 1285 of 2003. The application made by the Mullaloo Progress Association was dismissed in the judgment made by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Western Australia delivered on 28 November 2003. Orders for costs in favour of the City were made. With regard to the special costs order made, the City of Joondalup submitted its application to the Court on 3 February 2004. In his judgment delivered 25 March 2004, Pullin, J noted that “There has not been any material put before me that indicates that there is any prejudice to the applicant, other than the applicant’s concern about the possibility of a special costs order being made.” The Court was satisfied that the merits warranted a costs order being made and made the orders sought by the City. The Supreme Court application was not the first action taken by the Mullaloo Progress Association in relation to the development application. The Mullaloo Progress Association lodged a section 18(2) investigation under the Town Planning and Development Act in August 2002. In November 2002, the developer lodged an appeal with the Town Planning Appeal Tribunal. In March 2003 the Association applied to the Supreme Court. In August 2003 an appeal was lodged with the Minister of Housing. DETAILS There are three options listed for the Commissioners to consider. These are not considered exhaustive and other options combining elements of the options detailed are also available. 1 The City to write-off the opportunity to pursue Costs The City may choose to write-off the opportunity to pursue the costs awarded to it and owed by the Association. The basis for this decision lies with the likelihood that the Association does not have the capacity to pay the costs awarded to the City and in these circumstances for the City to pursue the costs awarded would require the City seeking further legal advice. The recovery of costs in these circumstances would not be guaranteed. The disadvantage of this recommendation is that it may establish a precedent whereby Associations in the future may believe that they can take the City to Court without the hindrance of costs being repaid. This is an unsatisfactory position for the City as it is the ratepayers who eventually bear the cost of these actions, and may encourage ‘actions’ to impact on Council decision-making role. It may be possible in order to protect the City’s and thereby the ratepayers interests in these actions if the City were able to obtain during the court proceedings some guarantee or security for costs from an Association that should a costs order be made against the Association, payment will be assured by the members of the association whether this is against each member of the Association in a personal capacity, or against any common property owned by the Association. The position may seem unfair in some circumstances, but this needs to be weighed against the interests of ratepayers who are left paying for such actions.


The ability to obtain such an order in court proceedings may be difficult and legal advice will be required in each circumstance. According to previous legal advice obtained by the City, an application for security of costs can only be brought if certain grounds are proven. These grounds include the relevant party being out of the jurisdiction or being an undischarged bankrupt. 2 The Association Repay the Costs The City may request the Association to repay the costs. It is unclear whether the Association has the capacity to satisfy the debt. The City would be required to obtain legal advice as to whether or not the costs could be retrieved from the Association either as a whole or against individual members. Associations and individuals need to recognise the significant risk associated with the awarding of costs following legal proceedings. In the case before the Commissioners, the City was justified in defending the action taken against it. From perusal of the filed Court documents it is apparent that at the time of the proceedings Mr Mitch Sideris had been President of the Mullaloo Progress Association and Mr Michael Caiacob had been the Vice-President. This option is not recommended mainly due to the fact that the legal costs associated with pursuing the costs would be significant and there are doubts as to the capacity of the Association to meet the awarded costs. 3 The City waives the cost subject to Conditions The City also has the ability to waive the opportunity to pursue the costs subject to the Association fulfilling certain conditions. The City may request the association to publicly admit that there actions have cost the ratepayers of the City over $60,000 in legal costs for the City to defend an action that was dismissed by the Court. This may act as a deterrent to other Associations from preventing frivolous or expensive actions. The City does not seek to obstruct the justice system, but care should be taken by applicants prior to commencing actions where they are not confident of success or they are frivolous. Litigation is expensive and should only be entered into once all avenues of mediation have been exhausted. Please note that the Chief Executive Officer does not have delegated authority under the Local Government Act 1995 to write-off a debt owing to the City. Section 6.12(1)(c) states that a local government may write-off any amount of money which is owed to the local government. An absolute majority is required by Council. It is recommended that this option be adopted. 4 The City does not Pursue the Action An option available to the City is for the City to do nothing in relation to the costs order. This would involve the City leaving on its financial register the costs award as a debt owing by the Mullaloo Progress Association. The advantage of this option is that the City is able to wait and deal with this matter at a time that is convenient to itself. However, the option is not recommended as no determination of the issue will be made and it is necessary that a decision be made in the interests of both the City and the Association.


5 The City Pursues the Individual Members of the Mullaloo Progress Association Inc While the Association may not have the requisite funds to cover the costs awarded to the City, the individual members may have the funds. The City may seek to pursue the individual members for the costs. As with option 2 above, this option is not recommended mainly due to the fact that there are doubts as to the capacity of the City to actually undertake this course of action and even if the City were able to, the legal costs associated with pursuing the individual members would likely be significant. 6 The City Pursues Payment of a Lesser Amount It is an option for the City to pursue a reduced cost amount from the Association for example $10,000 - $30,000. While this option is unsatisfactory in terms of percentage recovery of the costs award, at least it is likely to be within the payment range of the Association and the City may be able to recover some of the cost award. Issues and options considered: As discussed above. Link to Strategic Plan: The defence of actions and the significant legal costs associated with them affects the City’s ability to utilise monies for the benefit of the community and the pursuit of strategic goals. Legislation – Statutory Provisions: Court order to award costs made by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Western Australia. Risk Management considerations: If the City were to waive the costs awarded it may establish a precedent for Associations to undertake potentially expensive actions against the City and avoid payment of costs when they have been legitimately awarded. This may lead to an increase in litigation against the City and an increased burden on the ratepayer to pay for such actions when the City is forced to defend such actions. Financial/Budget Implications: Cost order taxed $60,978.12. Policy Implications: Not Applicable. Regional Significance: Not Applicable. Sustainability Implications: Not Applicable.


Consultation: Not Applicable. COMMENT It is recommended that the City agrees not to pursue the recovery of the full costs against the Mullaloo Progress Association Inc (MPA) for the taxed amount of $60,978.12, provided that a written acknowledgement to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer acknowledging the significant costs that have been incurred by the ratepayers as a result of their unsuccessful action is made. It is also recommended that the City progresses action to recover the amount of $10,000, from the Mullaloo Progress Association Inc by way of a payment plan spread over five years, which will constitute full satisfaction of the costs award. It is viewed that this course of action will in some way finalise the matter ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 Schedule of Taxation Attachment 2 Decision of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Western Australia in

the Matter of CIV 1285 of 2003 Attachment 3 Supplementary Decision of Pullin, J dated 25 March 2004 VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority MOVED Cmr Fox, SECONDED Cmr Clough that: 1 Council AGREES not to pursue the recovery of the full costs against the

Mullaloo Progress Association Inc (MPA) for the taxed amount of $60,978.12 subject to the MPA providing a written acknowledgement to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer acknowledging the significant costs that have been incurred by the ratepayers as a result of their unsuccessful action;

2 Council PROGRESSES action to recover the amount of $10,000, from the

Mullaloo Progress Association Inc by way of a payment plan spread over five years, which will constitute full satisfaction of the costs awarded;

3 in the event of legal proceedings being commenced by a Community

Association against the City in the future, that Association be ADVISED that the City may pursue all available options to recover any cost awarded.

Discussion ensued. AMENDMENT MOVED Cmr Smith, SECONDED Cmr Fox that Point 3 of the Motion be deleted and replaced with the following: “3 Council REQUESTS the Chief Executive Officer to draft a policy for

consideration of the Council in relation to recovering costs awarded to the City in legal proceedings.”

Discussion ensued. The Amendment was Put and CARRIED (5/0)


The Original Motion as amended, being: That Council: 1 AGREES not to pursue the recovery of the full costs against the Mullaloo

Progress Association Inc (MPA) for the taxed amount of $60,978.12 subject to the MPA providing a written acknowledgement to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer acknowledging the significant costs that have been incurred by the ratepayers as a result of their unsuccessful action;

2 PROGRESSES action to recover the amount of $10,000, from the Mullaloo

Progress Association Inc by way of a payment plan spread over five years, which will constitute full satisfaction of the costs awarded;

3 REQUESTS the Chief Executive Officer to draft a policy for consideration of the

Council in relation to recovering costs awarded to the City in legal proceedings. was Put and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (4/1) In favour of the Motion: Cmrs Paterson, Clough, Smith and Fox Against the Motion: Cmr Anderson Appendix 3 refers To access this attachment on electronic document, click here: Attach3brf061205.pdf CJ267 - 12/05 MINUTES OF THE POLICY COMMITTEE MEETING

HELD ON 29 NOVEMBER 2005 – [01435] WARD: All RESPONSIBLE Mr Garry Hunt DIRECTOR: Office of CEO CJ051206_BRF.DOC:ITEM 5 PURPOSE To submit the unconfirmed Minutes of the Policy Committee meeting held on 29 November 2005, for noting by Council. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A meeting of the Policy Committee was held on 29 November 2005. The matters considered by the Policy Committee at that meeting are the subject of separate reports to be submitted to the Council meeting scheduled for 13 December 2005. It is recommended that Council NOTES the unconfirmed Minutes of the Policy Committee meeting held on 29 November 2005 forming Attachment 1 to Report CJ267-12/05.



BACKGROUND Council at its meeting held on 26 April 2005 resolved to: “ESTABLISH a Policy Committee comprising membership of the five

Commissioners with the following terms of reference:

(a) To make recommendations to Council on the development and review of strategic (Council) policies to identify the direction of the Council;

(b) To Initiate and formulate strategic (Council) policies; (c) To devise and oversee the method of development (level and manner of

community consultation) for the development of strategic (Council) policies; (d) To review the Council Policy Governance Framework in order to ensure

compliance with provisions of the Local Government Act 1995.” DETAILS A meeting of the Policy Committee was held on 29 November 2005 to consider reports in relation to:

Proposed Amendment to DPS No 2 to include provision in regard to the height of developments in non-residential zones adjacent to the coast; Sustainability Policies.

The above matters are the subject of separate reports to be submitted to the Council meeting scheduled for 13 December 2005. Issues and options considered: As contained within the minutes of the Policy Committee. Link to Strategic Plan: This item has a general connection to the Strategic Plan. Legislation – Statutory Provisions: Section 5.8 of the Local Government Act 1995 states: A local government may establish (absolute majority required) committees of 3 or

more persons to assist the council and to exercise the powers and discharge the duties of the local government that can be delegated to committees.

Risk Management considerations: Not Applicable. Financial/Budget Implications: Not Applicable.


Policy Implications: The Policy Committee will review all policies categorised as “Council Policies”. Regional Significance: Not Applicable. Sustainability Implications: The review and development of policies will align with the strategic directions established by Council and outlined in the Strategic Plan 2003 – 2008. Council’s vision is to be ‘A sustainable City and community that are recognised as innovative, unique and diverse’. The Strategic Plan was designed to reflect the themes of economic, social and environmental sustainability as well as good governance. Consultation: It is proposed that major Council policies be subject to community consultation processes as determined by the Policy Committee. COMMENT The unconfirmed Minutes of the Policy Committee held on 29 November 2005 are submitted to Council for noting. Separate reports dealing with the matters raised at this committee meeting are to be submitted to the Council meeting scheduled for 13 December 2005. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 Minutes of the Policy Committee meeting held on 29 November 2005 VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority MOVED Cmr Clough, SECONDED Cmr Smith that Council NOTES the unconfirmed Minutes of the Policy Committee meeting held on 29 November 2005 forming Attachment 1 to Report CJ267-12/05. The Motion was Put and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (5/0) Appendix 4 refers To access this attachment on electronic document, click here: Attach4brf061205.pdf



CJ268 - 12/05 MINUTES OF THE AUDIT COMMITTEE MEETING

HELD 28 NOVEMBER 2005 - [50068] WARD: All RESPONSIBLE Mr Garry Hunt DIRECTOR: Office of the CEO CJ051206_BRF.DOC:ITEM 6 PURPOSE To submit the minutes of the Audit Committee to Council for noting. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A meeting of the Audit Committee was held on 28 November 2005, with the following items being discussed:

Schedule of Items to be presented to future Audit Committee meetings Annual General Meeting of Electors – Annual Report – Auditors

It is recommended that Council NOTES the minutes of the Audit Committee meeting held on 28 November 2005 forming Attachment 1 to Report CJ268-12/05. BACKGROUND The Council’s Audit Committee was established in May 2001 to oversee the internal and external Audit, Risk Management and Compliance functions of the City. The City has also employed an internal auditor since May 2002. DETAILS A meeting of the Audit Committee was held on 28 November 2005, and the minutes are attached for noting – Attachment 1 refers. Issues and options considered: As contained within the minutes of the Audit Committee. Link to Strategic Plan: 4.2.1 Provide efficient and effective service delivery 4.3.3 Provide fair and transparent decision-making processes Legislation – Statutory Provisions: Section 5.8 of the Local Government Act 1995 provides for a local government to establish a committee to assist Council.


Local Government Amendment Act 2004 Amendments to the Act regarding audit include the insertion of a new division 7.1A entitled “Audit Committee”. The new division deals with the establishment, membership, decision-making and duties that a local government can delegate to an Audit Committee. It also includes a new section 7.12A dealing with “Duties of local government with respect to audits”. Local Government (Audit) Amendment Regulations 2005 Amendments have been made on several minor issues such as definitions and interpretations. The most significant change has been the inclusion of new regulation 16, which deals with the “Functions of the Audit Committee” Risk Management considerations: Not Applicable. Financial/Budget Implications: Not Applicable. Policy Implications: Not Applicable. Regional Significance: Not Applicable. Sustainability Implications: Not Applicable. Consultation: Not Applicable. COMMENT The minutes of the Audit Committee meeting held on 28 November 2005 are submitted to Council for noting. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 Minutes of the Audit Committee meeting held 28 November 2005 VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority


MOVED Cmr Clough, SECONDED Cmr Smith that Council NOTES the minutes of the Audit Committee meeting held on 28 November 2005 forming Attachment 1 to Report CJ268-02/05. The Motion was Put and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (5/0) Appendix 5 refers To access this attachment on electronic document, click here: Attach5brf061205.pdf

CJ269 - 12/05 SUSTAINABILITY POLICIES – [26176] WARD: All RESPONSIBLE Mr Garry Hunt DIRECTOR: Office of CEO CJ051206_BRF.DOC:ITEM 7 PURPOSE To provide the Council with the following for consideration:

Discussion Paper on Sustainability; Draft Council Policy committing all Council Policies to sustainability outcomes; and Draft City Sustainability Policy.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY All policies of Council have been categorised as ‘Council’ or ‘City’ Policies according to the Policy Governance Framework endorsed by the Council on 26 April 2005 (refer CJO64- 04/05). The Policy Committee has been established to oversee the review and development of Council Policies which are defined in the framework as “strategic policies that set governing principles and guide the direction of the organisation to align with community values and aspirations. These policies have a strategic external focus and align with the Mission, Vision and Strategic Directions.” The Council has referred all Council Policies to the Policy Committee for review and further development. Those policies categorised as ‘Council’ Policies are:

1-1 Leisure 1-2 Public Participation 2-1 Environmental Sustainability 3-1 Child Care Centres 3-2 Height and Scale of Buildings within Residential Areas 3-3 Centres Strategy 4-1 Code of Conduct 4-2 Setting Fees and Charges



Council further identified a number of gaps in Council Policies and these matters were also referred to the Policy Committee for consideration, those being:

Financial Planning – Strategic Matters Economic Development Service Delivery (range/scope/role) Community Development; (include leisure, cultural development etc)

On 18 October 2005 the Policy Committee determined: 1 That the following Council Policies are to be drafted in the following order of priority:

(a) Policy 3-2 – Height and Scale of Buildings within Residential Areas; (b) Sustainability; (c) Financial Planning – Strategic Matters; (d) Economic Development; (e) Service provision; (f) Community Development; (g) Public Participation.

2 A draft policy be presented to the Policy Committee on Policy 3-2 – Height and Scale

of Buildings within Residential Areas that includes coastal areas and is based on the expectation that full public participation is undertaken.

On 29 November 2005 the Policy Committee received a report on sustainability policies and reviewed:

• A Discussion Paper on sustainability; • A Draft Council Sustainability Policy, and • A Draft City Sustainability Policy.

BACKGROUND Council established a Policy Committee at the meeting of 26 April 2005 (refer CJO64 – 04/05). Council endorsed the following terms of reference for the Policy Committee:

(a) To make recommendations to Council on the development and review of strategic (Council) policies to identify the direction of the Council;

(b) To Initiate and formulate strategic (Council) policies; (c) To devise and oversee the method of development (level and manner of

community consultation) for the development of strategic (Council) policies; (d) To review the Council Policy Governance Framework in order to ensure

compliance with provisions of the Local Government Act 1995. The report to the Council Meeting of 26 April 2005 recommended a new framework for the development and review of policies at the City of Joondalup consisting of two distinct sets of policies: 1 Council Policies - strategic policies that set governing principles and guide the

direction of the organisation to align with community values and aspirations. These policies have a strategic external focus and align with the Mission, Vision and Strategic Directions.


2 City Policies - policies that are developed for administrative and operational imperatives and have an internal focus.

The Policy Framework was endorsed by the Council and in accordance with that framework, Council policies are to be developed and reviewed by the Policy Committee and may be subject to community consultation processes in recognition of the community leadership role Council has in guiding the formation and development of the City, and in representing the values and interests of the broader community. City policies will be drafted by officers for Council consideration and these policies will still require Council endorsement however this will occur as part of the normal Council meeting cycle. Council may direct that some or all City Policies be advertised for public comment prior to endorsement. In the case of Local Planning Policies it is a statutory requirement that draft policies are to be advertised, and that public submissions are to be considered prior to adoption of the policy. In order to progress the Policy Framework and to facilitate the work of the Policy Committee in the development and review of Council Policies a detailed review of the Policy Manual was undertaken and a number of changes were made to those policies categorised as City Policies. The Council endorsed the revised Policy Manual on 11 October 2005 (refer CJ206-10/05). Council Policies, other than their categorisation, were not reviewed, but were referred, by the Council, to the Policy Committee for review and further development. Sections 3.1 and 3.2 – matters relating to development, many of which are subsidiary policies developed under the District Planning Scheme (DPS2) were excluded from the Review as they require a specific review process; (These local planning policies are currently being reviewed as a separate exercise in accordance with the provisions of the DPS2 and a separate report/s will be provided to Council following that review). The Council endorsed the following policies as Council Policies:

1-1 Leisure 1-2 Public Participation 2-1 Environmental Sustainability 3-1 Child Care Centres 3-2 Height and Scale of Buildings within Residential Areas 3-3 Centres Strategy 4-1 Code of Conduct 4-2 Setting Fees and Charges

The Council further identified the following gaps in Council Policies for consideration by the Policy Committee:

Financial Planning – Strategic Matters Economic Development Service Delivery (range/scope/role) Community Development; (include leisure, cultural development etc)


At the Policy Committee Meeting of 18 October 2005 the following changes were suggested: A more appropriate title for ‘Setting of Fees and Charges’ is ‘Pricing Policy’; ‘Service Delivery’ to become ‘Service Provision’ to better reflect the different roles of

the City in providing services to the community; and ‘Financial Planning – Strategic Matters’ to become ‘Stewardship of Financial

Resources’. On 18 October 2005 the Policy Committee determined: 1 That the following Council Policies are to be drafted in the following order of priority:

(a) Policy 3-2 – Height and Scale of Buildings within Residential Areas; (b) Sustainability; (c) Financial Planning – Strategic Matters; (d) Economic Development; (e) Service provision; (f) Community Development; (g) Public Participation.

2 A draft policy be presented to the Policy Committee on Policy 3-2 – Height and Scale of Buildings within Residential Areas that includes coastal areas and is based on the expectation that full public participation is undertaken.

At the Policy Committee meeting of 29 November 2005 a report was provided on a revised Council Sustainability Policy that commits all policies of the Council to sustainability objectives, and a Draft City Sustainability Policy. The Draft Council Sustainability Policy is shown as Attachment 2 to this report, and the Draft City Sustainability Policy is shown as Attachment 3 to this report. DETAILS Issues and options considered: The Local Government Act 1995 requires that

In carrying out its functions a local government is to use its best endeavours to meet the needs of current and future generations through an integration of environmental protection, social advancement and economic prosperity.

The Discussion Paper shown as Attachment 1 to this report provides a summary of sustainability issues for Local Government and provides a number of definitions and approaches to sustainability from a range of organisations. In order to align with the Western Australian Government it is suggested that the definition of sustainability contained in the Western Australian State Sustainability Strategy, be adopted by the Council, that being:

Meeting the needs of current and future generations through integration of environmental protection, social advancement and economic prosperity.

Following consideration of a number of approaches to sustainability and varying principles adopted by organisations, it is recommended that the set of principles endorsed at the 2002 World Summit of local governments held in Johannesburg which focused on the issues of sustainable development, are used for the Council Policy on Sustainability, those being:


1 The overarching principle of Sustainable Development (integrating the economic, social, cultural and environmental dimensions);

2 Effective Democratic Participation (with a substantial set of key competencies, and commensurate financial resources);

3 Good Governance (effective leadership, transparency, accountability, probity, proper management and effective services, equitable access to services, a commitment to partnership working, and institutional capacity building.); and

4 Co-operation and Solidarity (partnerships for exchange of good practice, support and mutual learning.)

Further, following consideration of the principles and approaches by a number of organisations to sustainable development, the framework established at the 1992 Rio Conference is suggested for the City Sustainability Policy to guide the development of policies and strategies, those being: 1 Management, planning and development decisions should be based on an integration

of economic, environmental and social/cultural considerations; 2 Avoidance of the risk of serious or irreversible environmental damage should not be

postponed because of a lack of full, scientific knowledge (the 'precautionary principle');

3 Development of a strong, growing and diversified economy should enhance the capacity to protect the environment;

4 Policy measures should encourage voluntary, cost effective achievement of environmental goals and responses to environmental problems; and

5 Acknowledgment should be made of the need for community consultation and participation in decision making to achieve a cooperative response to environmental, economic and community issues.

Link to Strategic Plan: This item has a general connection to the Strategic Plan. Legislation – Statutory Provisions: The Local Government Act 1995 is the legislation under which Local Government bodies are constituted and contains detailed reporting and operational requirements which a Council has a duty to comply with. The Act establishes the framework for the system of local government in Western Australia. Section 1.3 (2) states that the Act is intended to result in: (a) Better decision-making by local government (b) Greater community participation in the decisions and affairs of local governments (c) Greater accountability of local governments to their communities; and (d) More efficient and effective local government. The degree to which this is achieved is dependant on the processes and practices for planning, and policy development. Part 3 of the Act outlines the functions of local governments: Section 3.1 - A general function to provide for good government Section 3.4 - A legislative function to make local laws, and Section 3.8 - An executive function to provide services and facilities.


The separation of powers and duties in relation to the Council and the Chief Executive Officers as detailed in the Local Government Act 1995 are: Under the Act (Section 2.7) the role of the Council is to: (a) Direct and controls the local government’s affairs; (b) Be responsible for the performance of the local government’s functions; (c) Oversee the allocation of the local government’s finances and resources; and (d) Determine the local governments policies. The Local Government Act amendments of 2004-05 requires that local government consider sustainability as a core component of its decision making function. Section 1.3 states: In carrying out its functions a local government is to use its best endeavours to meet the needs of current and future generations through an integration of environmental protection, social advancement and economic prosperity Risk Management considerations: Policy development is central to good governance. Good governance is about formalising and making clear and consistent the decision-making processes in the organisation. The framework proposed in this report will help facilitate decision-making and appropriate delegation of accountability and responsibility within and outside the organisation and ensure that the varying needs of the stakeholders are appropriately balanced; that decisions are made in a rational, informed and transparent fashion; and that those decisions contribute to the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the organisation. Local Government operates under State legislation and Council is responsible for controlling the functions of the local government through its decision-making and policy development role. The distinction between policy matters and procedural matters is central to the role of Council and the role of the CEO, and to the administration of local government. The new Policy Framework will assist Council to concentrate on policy matters rather than procedural issues, and for the CEO to provide advice to the Council and implement the decisions of Council. Policy Implications: The report provides a draft Council and City Sustainability Policies. The current Environmental Sustainability Policy 2-1 will no longer be required with the adoption of the Council Sustainability Policy and the City Sustainability Policy. The contents of and the commitments that Council makes in these policies are not intended to be and should not be interpreted to be any more than a statement of the Council’s general position in relation to those matters, and to facilitate its aspirations wherever it is reasonable to do so. Regional Significance: The Council Policy committing all Council Policies to sustainability principles and outcomes includes a reference to the importance of regional considerations through cooperation and partnerships.


Sustainability Implications: The review and development of policies will align with the strategic directions established by Council and outlined in the Strategic Plan 2003 – 2008. Council’s vision is to be ‘A sustainable City and community that are recognised as innovative, unique and diverse’. The Strategic Plan determines the long-term orientation of the Council and was developed in consultation with the community. The Plan was designed to reflect the themes of economic, social and environmental sustainability as well as good governance. The policies of Council (Council and City policies) support the achievement of the Strategic Plan and state Council’s position on social, environmental, and economic matters as well as governance issues. The policy positions of Council attempts to balance the social, environmental and economic interests of the City, and the review of policies of the Council will ensure that social, economic, and environmental changes are reflected in policy statements and objectives. Consultation: One of the most important roles Council has is to participate in making policy and decisions on behalf of the community. An essential part of policy making is identifying community needs, setting objectives to meet those needs, establishing priorities between competing demands and allocating resources. The City of Joondalup values effective consultation in developing a positive relationship with its community; recognising that community input can assist in policy and decision making processes. Council also recognises the right of the community to be informed and influence decisions that affect their lives. As a result of this commitment Council has endorsed a Policy Framework that supports Council (major) policies being devised in consultation with the community. The framework is intended to ensure that Council is in touch with the community and that the major policy decisions accurately reflect the views and aspirations of the community. COMMENT Increasing the social, economic and environmental capital of the City of Joondalup is the Council’s core business. Local government is uniquely placed to take a leadership role in facilitating sustainable development. Local Government has always been required to be highly responsive and to deal with economic, social and environmental issues at the coalface by providing the services necessary to support the community. While local government is well positioned to tackle sustainability issues the reality is that it is not an easy task. There are a number of different approaches adopted by organisations and there is no standard guide. However, despite the difficulties and the absence of a standard guide, there are clearly a number of actions that a Council must take if sustainability is to become a part of normal business. The Draft Council Sustainability Policy committing all Council Policies to sustainability principles and outcomes (Attachment 2) and the Draft City Sustainability Policy (Attachment 3), along with the Discussion Paper (Attachment 1) provides a framework for the Council to:

Clarify its sustainability values; Identify how its business impacts on sustainability; and Establish how it can best make a contribution toward a more sustainable world.


ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 Discussion Paper - Sustainability Attachment 2 Draft Council Policy – Sustainability Attachment 3 Draft City Policy – Sustainability VOTING REQUIREMENTS Absolute Majority Call for One-Third Support The Local Government Act 1995, under regulations prescribed to deal with Section 5.25(e), lays down the following procedure for dealing with revoking or changing decisions made at Council or Committee meetings: If a decision has been made at a Council meeting, then any motion to revoke or

change the decision must be supported by at least one-third of the number of officers (whether vacant or not) of members of the Council.

If supported by one-third of the members, then any decision to revoke a resolution of

the Council is required to be passed by an Absolute Majority. Prior to giving consideration to the following recommendation, Commissioners are required to give the support of one-third of their members, and such support is to be recorded in the Minutes of this meeting. Commissioners indicated their support in relation to this Revocation. MOVED Cmr Anderson, SECONDED Cmr Smith that Council: 1 REFERS the Draft Council Policy on Sustainability forming Attachment 2 to

Report CJ269-12/05 to the Sustainability Advisory Committee for review and comment;

2 DELETES the Environmental Sustainability Policy 2-1 and ADOPTS the City

Sustainability Policy 5-4 shown as Attachment 3 to Report CJ269-12/05; 3 REFERS the City Sustainability Policy 5-4 shown as Attachment 3 to Report

CJ269-12/05 to the Sustainability Advisory Committee for information. Discussion ensued. Cmr Anderson made reference to the Sustainability Discussion Paper (Appendix 6), stamped page 142 and queried attaching this as an addendum to the Policy. Chief Executive Officer advised that a footnote could be applied to the Policy, with a reference to link to the discussion paper. The Motion was Put and CARRIED BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY (5/0) Appendix 6 refers To access this attachment on electronic document, click here: Attach6brf061205.pdf



CJ270 - 12/05 RENEWAL OF LEASE TO THE UNDERCROFT

BRIDGE CLUB INCORPORATED: PORTION OF PERCY DOYLE RESERVE - RESERVE 33894, LOCATION 9424, (46) WARWICK ROAD, DUNCRAIG – [17817]

WARD: South Coastal RESPONSIBLE Mr Peter Schneider DIRECTOR: Corporate Services CJ051206_BRF.DOC:ITEM 8 PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s approval for the City to enter into a new lease agreement with the Undercroft Bridge Club Incorporated (UBC), based at its current clubroom site located on part of Percy Doyle Reserve in Duncraig. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The UBC has leased the subject clubrooms from the City since 1 October 1993, when the building was constructed on part of Percy Doyle Reserve, Duncraig (Attachment 1 refers). During the 10-year term, the UBC has met all the necessary obligations under the lease. The UBC has requested a new lease to enable the club to continue operating from its current premises, and the City, the UBC, and the Department for Planning and Infrastructure’s (DPI) Land Asset Management Services have all agreed in principle to a new draft lease agreement. The draft lease outlines similar terms and conditions as the previous lease, is also for a 10-year term and is subject to Council’s approval. It is recommended that Council: 1 SUPPORTS a lease agreement between the City and the Undercroft Bridge Club

Incorporated subject to:

(a) the term of the lease being for 10 years commencing 1 October 2003 and payment of rent of $1.00 per annum (peppercorn);

(b) the premises being used for the stated purpose in the agreed draft lease

agreement of ‘recreational and community purposes’;

(c) the legal costs in drafting the lease document being met by the Undercroft Bridge Club Incorporated;

(d) the Minister for Lands granting final approval to the executed lease.

2 AUTHORISES signing and affixing of the Common Seal to the lease between the City of Joondalup and the Undercroft Bridge Club Inc.


BACKGROUND

Suburb/Location: Portion of Percy Doyle Reserve, Duncraig Applicant: The Undercroft Bridge Club Incorporated Owner: Crown Land managed by the City of Joondalup Zoning: DPS: Local Reserve – Parks and Recreation MRS: Urban Strategic Plan: Strategy 1.3.1 – Provide leisure and recreational activities

aligned to community expectations, incorporating innovative opportunities for today’s environment Strategy 3.1- to develop and maintain the City’s assets and built environment

In February 1991, Council supported in principle the establishment of a bridge club facility by the UBC to be located on part of Percy Doyle Reserve and also supported its application to the Lotteries Commission for a grant for part payment of the construction costs. The clubrooms currently used by the UBC were constructed in 1993. The $230,000 project was funded by a Commonwealth Grant of $100,000, a State Grant of $35,000, a Lotteries Commission Grant of $30,000, Club funds of $65,000 of which $30,000 was a loan taken out by the Club. Council funds were not used in the construction of the building and the City's role was that of co-ordinator and supervisor of the project. With Council’s approval, a lease agreement was entered into for a 10-year period commencing 1 October 1993, with a peppercorn rental (one dollar per annum), conditional on the UBC being wholly responsible for all maintenance repairs and outgoings including rates. The lease expired on 30 September 2003 and to-date the Club has been operating under the same terms and conditions as the expired lease and has met its obligations under the terms and conditions. DETAILS Issues and options considered: Request for Change of Term Prior to the expiration of the UBC’s lease, the Club contacted the City requesting renewal of its lease but for a 20-year term rather than 10 years as per the original lease. A lease period of up to 21 years could be considered on Reserve 33894, with the approval of Council and the Minister for Lands, but it is considered that 10 years is a more appropriate lease term. A 10 year term allows clubs sufficient security of tenure in respect to their future plans and is considered more timely for an overall reassessment of matters such as:

• the future of the building in terms of its age and condition; • the subject club’s development plan (membership numbers or a club’s financial

position may not warrant the club continuing in its current building); • a rental agreed to at the commencement of a (say) 21-year lease period could be

totally unrealistic in the latter years of the lease period; and • direction of City’s Strategic Plan and associated recreation and leisure strategies.


Updated Lease Document The City advised the UBC in November 2003 that it was undertaking an examination of its lease documents associated with premises that were leased on a peppercorn rental. This examination was to ‘modernise’ the wording if possible, in order to make the lease document easier to understand for lessees. It was also the City’s intention to prepare a lease document that was more comprehensive in respect to its terms and conditions in an endeavour to fully cover all the ‘grey areas’ that can be experienced when dealing with matters such as maintenance conditions, outgoings, replacement of lost keys, compliance testing for fire fighting equipment etc. It is considered that the resultant document is now clearer and more workable for both the lessee and the City as lessor and will of benefit to all concerned when dealing with lease matters. Draft Lease A draft lease document has been agreed between the City and the UBC subject to support from Council and the Minster for Lands, and this was forwarded to the DPI to request in principle approval before final drafting. The DPI has provided this agreement, subject to one minor amendment to be included in the lease before final drafting. The lease document will then need to be executed by the City and the UBC and final approval given by the Minister before lodgement of the document at the Office of Titles. Link to Strategic Plan: It is considered that offering the UBC a further lease for a 10-year period aligns with Strategy 1.3.1 and 3.1 above. Legislation – Statutory Provisions: The Lessee and the purpose independently qualify this Lease as an exempt disposition under Regulation 30(2)(b)(i) of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996. Accordingly, there is no need to comply with the disposal conditions as provided by Section 3.58 of the Local Government Act, 1995. The above regulation states that a disposition of land is an exempt disposition if, “the land to be disposed of to a body, whether incorporated or not, the objects of which are charitable, benevolent, religious, cultural, educational, recreational, sporting or other like nature and the members of which are not entitled or permitted to receive any pecuniary profit from the body’s transactions.” The Minister for Lands has by order, under Section 41 of the Land Administration Act 1997, given the City care, control and management of Reserve 33894 for recreational purposes, with power to lease. This is conditional upon the Minister giving prior approval to any lease or sub-lease proposed on the subject land. Risk Management considerations: Risk to the City is considered minimal in respect of entering into a further lease with the UBC, providing that the lease terms and conditions are met and the leased building is maintained to a satisfactory standard by the UBC. From the City’s perspective, a 10-year term allows the City to consider the future of the building and its place in the overall plan for Percy Doyle Reserve in September 2013 when the building is 20 years old. Financial/Budget Implications: Under the terms of the lease, the maintenance of the building will be met by the UBC.


Sustainability Implications: This lease agreement is financially viable given that there are no ongoing maintenance costs and the legal costs in drafting the lease document are being met by the UBC. The lease agreement aligns with the City’s strategic plan by meeting the needs of the community but also has a positive effect on the community by providing access to leisure and recreational facilities. There are limited environmental considerations, as the clubroom site is located in an area already designated for recreational and community purposes. COMMENT The UBC reports that it has a base of approximately 350 members with an average daily attendance at the club of 70. The general operating hours of the UBC is 12.30pm to 4.30pm Monday to Friday and 7.30pm to 10.30pm on Saturday evenings; the UBC advise that the club is open during the day on Saturday for instruction in the game of bridge. The UBC has in the past met its obligations under the previous lease and is considered to be a good tenant. The City has met its statutory obligations and there would not appear to be any impediment to a further lease with UBC being granted. The City’s redrafted ‘community’ lease is considered to be a clearer and more comprehensive document giving less cause for uncertainty about obligations under the lease. It is therefore recommended that a 10-year lease be offered to the UBC subject to the endorsement of the Minster for Lands and the UBC meeting its obligations under the lease ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 Plan indicating location of Undercroft Bridge Club Incorporated VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority MOVED Cmr Smith, SECONDED Cmr Clough that Council: 1 SUPPORTS a Lease Agreement between the City and the Undercroft Bridge

Club Incorporated subject to:

(a) the term of the Lease being for 10 years commencing 1 October 2003 and payment of rent of $1.00 per annum (peppercorn);

(b) the premises being used for the stated purpose in the agreed draft lease

agreement of ‘recreational and community purposes’;


(c) the legal costs in drafting the lease document being met by the Undercroft Bridge Club Incorporated;

(d) the Minister for Lands granting final approval to the executed Lease.

2 AUTHORISES signing and affixing of the Common Seal to the Lease between the City of Joondalup and the Undercroft Bridge Club Inc.

The Motion was Put and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (5/0) Appendix 7 refers To access this attachment on electronic document, click here: Attach7brf061205.pdf Disclosure of interest affecting impartiality Name/Position Cmr P Clough Item No/Subject CJ271-12/05 – Lot 118 Mindarie Establishment Agreement Nature of interest Interest that may affect impartiality Extent of Interest Cmr Clough has been appointed to take up a position once the new


the new Council is created. CJ271 - 12/05 LOT 118 MINDARIE ESTABLISHMENT AGREEMENT

– [41196] WARD: All RESPONSIBLE Mr David Djulbic DIRECTOR: Infrastructure Services CJ051206_BRF.DOC:ITEM 9

Chief Executive Officer made reference to the Establishment Agreement in that there is a new version of the document reflecting a change to one page. This change relates to page 6 – definition of land, Clause (c). Cmr Smith advised the version currently held by Commissioners was quite different to that read aloud by the Chief Executive Officer and requested that this Item be deferred until the end of the meeting to enable Commissioners to be provided with a copy as read by CEO.

MOVED Cmr Smith, SECONDED Cmr Anderson that consideration of the Item pertaining to Lot 118 Mindarie Establishment Agreement be DEFERRED until the end of the meeting to enable Commissioners to be provided with a copy of the page of the document as read aloud by the CEO. The Motion was Put and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (5/0)



Disclosure of interest affecting impartiality Name/Position Cmr A Fox Item No/Subject CJ272-12/05 – Lot 118 Mindarie – Proposed Lease Amendment

with Mindarie Regional Council Nature of interest Interest that may affect impartiality Extent of Interest Cmr Fox stated she is one of the City’s delegates on the Mindarie

Regional Council, however she would deal impartiality with this matter.

Name/Position Cmr S Smith Item No/Subject CJ272-12/05 – Lot 118 Mindarie – Proposed Lease Amendment

with Mindarie Regional Council Nature of interest Interest that may affect impartiality Extent of Interest Cmr Smith is one of the City’s delegates on the Mindarie Regional

Council. CJ272 - 12/05 LOT 118 MINDARIE - PROPOSED LEASE

AMENDMENT WITH MINDARIE REGIONAL COUNCIL – [41196]

WARD: All RESPONSIBLE Mr David Djulbic DIRECTOR: Infrastructure Services CJ051206_BRF.DOC:ITEM 10 PURPOSE To advise final drafting of documents to bring about amendment of an existing lease of 252 hectares of Lot 118 Mindarie to facilitate the land transfers necessary under the Negotiated Planning Solutions (NPS) with the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC). EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Council has previously approved the advertising of a Business Plan dealing with a number of proposed land transactions affecting Lot 118 Mindarie. After consideration of submissions the Business Plan was adopted by all of the local government owner Councils (refer CJ129-06/05 Lot 118 Mindarie – Business Plan for a Major Land Transaction and Establishment of a Regional (Development) Council). This report deals with the lease amendment pertaining to the Mindarie Regional Council’s leased land to facilitate the land transfers necessary under the NPS with the WAPC It is recommended that Council: 1 ENDORSES the lease rental for the amended lease to Mindarie Regional Council be

$510,294 effective from 1 January 2006; 2 ENDORSES that the amended lease of part Lot 118 Mindarie to the Mindarie

Regional Council, effective from 1 January 2006, be APPROVED;


3 AUTHORISES the Chief Executive Officer to sign and seal the agreement to vary the lease between the owner Councils and Mindarie Regional Council and also to sign and seal the new lease, which is an annexure to the Agreement for Variation of Lease.

BACKGROUND The Council has previously adopted a Business Plan dealing with a number of proposed land transactions affecting Lot 118 Mindarie. Lot 118 Mindarie is jointly owned by 7 local governments in the following shares:

Council Project Shareholding Joint Development Shares

Town of Cambridge 1/12 City of Perth 1/12 Town of Victoria Park 1/12 Town of Vincent 1/12 City of Joondalup 2/12 City of Wanneroo 2/12 City of Stirling 4/12

The proposed land transactions included: 1 A reduction in lease area to Mindarie Regional Council (and other consequential

adjustments); 2 The establishment of a Regional Council to undertake urban development of part of Lot

118 Mindarie; 3 A Negotiated Planning Solution (NPS) with the West Australian Planning Commission

(WAPC) by which part of Lot 118 Mindarie would be transferred to the WAPC for compensation at agreed values;

4 A transfer of part of Lot 118 to the new Regional Council established for the purpose of effecting the urban development of part Lot 118 Mindarie.

The Business Plan was advertised as required by Local Government Act provisions. After consideration of submissions, the Business Plan was adopted by all of the local government owner Councils. DETAILS Issues and options considered: In respect of the proposed lease amendment, the Mindarie Regional Council also advertised a Business Plan. The Mindarie Regional Council has formally adopted the Business Plan and has resolved to proceed to implement the Plan. Having properly dealt with the requirement to prepare, advertise and consider submissions in response to a prepared Business Plan, the necessary action was then commenced to: • Prepare an Establishment Agreement for the proposed new Regional (Development)

Council. • Prepare the necessary lease amendment.


The lease amendment was necessary in order to facilitate the land transfers necessary under the NPS with the WAPC.

Under the NPS, the parts of the existing lease to Mindarie Regional Council, which are marked ‘B’ on the plan will be transferred to the Crown leaving the residual area marked ‘A’ (the area between Marmion Avenue and Connolly Drive) as the revised lease area to the Mindarie Regional Council. The amendment to the lease, in summary, addresses additional issues. The full effect of the lease amendment will bring about the following: • A reduction in lease area from 252 hectares to 151.7 hectares; • The introduction of good neighbour provisions to provide an understanding between the

lessor and lessee in respect of the lessee’s buffer requirements for a licence to operate a landfill;

• A recognition of the lease extension provisions by stipulating the extended expiry date as

2032; • A change to the existing formula provision for lease rental to a market rental; Lease Valuation The existing lease rental is based upon a formula which calculates rental based upon the original value of the land, CPI adjusted, multiplied by the long-term bond rate. The derived annual rental from this calculation for the 2004/05 financial year is $178,000. The Mindarie Regional Council, of its own volition, had proposed a figure of $400,000 for 2005/06 assuming a transition to a market rental base. The figure of $400,000 was based on a valuation obtained by Mindarie Regional Council in 2002. A new valuation was jointly commissioned by the landowner CEO Group and the Mindarie Regional Council from the Valuer General in 2005. The valuation for the proposed new lease area of 151.7 hectares was obtained in July 2005. The valuation indicated valuation components and rental consideration as outlined in the table below.

A


The full valuation is $775,997, however, this valuation assumes all of the land is usable by Mindarie Regional Council whereas there are restrictions imposed upon occupational use as a consequence of aboriginal ethnographic and MRS reservations. There has also been a valuation made for the area of deferred urban land that constitutes the interim buffer that will be used by Mindarie Regional Council to satisfy its licence requirements. However, this buffer will not apply after 31 December 2010 and, in ordinary circumstances, would warrant only a notional addition to lease rental. In consequence, concessional factors, with valuation advice, have been applied to the restricted and buffer areas involved in the lease. The concessional figures are contained in the valuation table below. Valuation Components and Applicable Rental Land Area

Hectares Valuation per

hectare Total

Valuation Value @

8.5% Valuation

Application

Value for Rent

$ Usable land 84.8341 45,000 3,817,534 324,490 100% 324,490

Lease area buffer + Aboriginal land

66.93 45,000 3,011,850 256,007 50% 128,004

Costs of operating licence

500,000 42,500 100% 42,500

Licence approvals urban deferred temporary buffer

40 45,000 1,800,000 153,000 10% 15,300

Rent at 8.5% (exc GST)

191.7641 9,129,384 775,997 510,294

It is understood that the Mindarie Regional Council will receive a report at its meeting on 8 December 2005 recommending agreement to the new lease consideration with recommendations to complete the lease document. A summary of the proposed new lease is as follows: 1 A term expiring on 31 December 2032; 2 A starting rent (1 January 2006) of $510,294; 3 Market rent reviews every 5 years; 4 CPI rent review annually (other than in market rent review years); 5 Statutory outgoings to be paid by Mindarie Regional Council; 6 Environmental liabilities existing before and after the lease term to be satisfied by

Mindarie Regional Council; 7 Rehabilitation to be in accordance with best practice, lease provisions, environmental

and planning law;


8 Permitted use – the carrying on of Mindarie Regional Council core business; 9 Public consultation – required where the extent or intensity of use is likely to impact

the public interest; 10 Lessor consultation – as listed in (9) above and wherever reasonably required; 11 Termination – Mindarie Regional Council to remove all improvements and rehabilitate

the site. The lessor may purchase improvements at an agreed price. 12 Rehabilitation on termination – Mindarie Regional Council must make good and

rehabilitate for recreation and conservation. A plan to be approved by the Department of Environment with obligations extending past the lease expiry date;

13 Buffer recognition – the parties acknowledge a 500m buffer to landfill operations. Mindarie Regional Council is to progressively reduce the buffer and entirely eliminate the buffer by 31 December 2010;

14 Assignment of lease – requires lessor approval; 15 Sub-lease or licence – lessee may grant, but only for purpose consistent with the

lessor’s core business; 16 Insurance – public liability – a minimum $20M – other normal insurances apply. Link to Strategic Plan: Completion of the lease amendment with the Mindarie Regional Council will facilitate further land transactions with Lot 118 Mindarie leading to the development of approximately 165 hectares of urban land in the northern corridor, which will have significant impacts on optimum utilisation of existing infrastructure and the provision of new infrastructure. Legislation – Statutory Provisions: Legislative requirements have been satisfied through the structure of the lease document and appropriate references therein. Risk Management considerations: The finalisation of the leasing arrangements is required to facilitate the land transfers necessary under the NPS with the WAPC. Financial/Budget Implications: The amended lease will substantially increase lease rental. The reduction in lease area will facilitate completion of the NPS with payment of compensation to joint landowners. Policy Implications: Not Applicable Regional Significance: Lot 118 is a critical piece of land in the WAPC projections for urban land releases in the northern corridor. Development of the land will feed into the efficient utilisation of local infrastructure and the viability of local businesses. Sustainability Implications: Included within the objectives of the Regional (Development) Council is to balance economic, social and environmental considerations to produce a quality development demonstrating the best urban and development practice.


Consultation: Consultation has been completed through the Business Plan, previously adopted by this Council. Because the participant landowners are also participants in the Mindarie Regional Council, it could be made unnecessary for the Mindarie Regional Council to refer the details of the lease changes to individual participants in the Mindarie Regional Council for specific approval if: • The Mindarie Regional Council approves the changes; • The Mindarie Regional Council advises its participant Councils that it will not seek a

separate approval for lease changes in the event that the Councils signify that they have separately approved the lease as landowners; and

• The owner local governments signify to the Mindarie Regional Council that a separate referral of the lease amendment by Mindarie Regional Council to participant Councils is waived.

COMMENT The original lease, and the amended lease, will comprise a land parcel which is a part of Lot 118 Mindarie. The provisions of Section 20 of the Town Planning & Development Act require that where a part lot is a subject of lease, specific approval to the lease must be obtained from the WAPC. Ministerial endorsement is necessary. The construction of the agreement to vary the lease (and the new lease, which is made an annexure to the agreement to vary) obviates the necessity for further special approval under Section 20 of the Town Planning & Development Act. This position has been certified by solicitors for the lessor and lessee and has also been checked with the Department of Planning and Infrastructure. The NPS with the WAPC is imminent. The areas of land subject of the NPS have been agreed between the owner representatives and the WAPC. The WAPC has agreed to pay the owners valuation for the land to be transferred under the NPS. The amount of compensation to be paid by the WAPC is $16.3M, which payment will be made progressively as surveys are completed for the individual land parcels subject of the NPS. The major part of the compensation will relate to land west of Marmion Avenue comprising 120 hectares. The compensation payment relating to this land parcel is $14.928M and the proposal is to have the payment made in 2 instalments prior to 30 June 2006. If all of the owner Councils complete the NPS documents and also complete the documents required to effect the establishment of the new Regional (Development) Council, the payment for compensation by WAPC will provide the seed funding for the new Regional (Development) Council and the Establishment Agreement for the new Council contains a provision that requires payment of the compensation from the WAPC to the new Regional (Development) Council. Part of the area subject of the lease agreement could be rezoned at a future time from POS to urban under the Metropolitan Region Scheme if the 7 local authority landowners of the TPRC are able to demonstrate the desirability for the rezoning based upon topographic,


ethnographic, geological and other considerations that are researched and developed through structure planning. The likelihood of this event is somewhat remote and has not been referenced in the lease amendment. In the event that any land is released from the current restrictions imposed by the MRS and by Bush Forever policy, it would be appropriate, at the time of the release to undertake a renegotiation of lease provisions with the MRC. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 Deed of Extension, Variation and Partial Surrender of Lease relating to

Tamala Park, Marmion Avenue, Mindarie VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority MOVED Cmr Clough, SECONDED Cmr Anderson that Council: 1 ENDORSES the lease rental for the amended lease to Mindarie Regional

Council be $510,294 effective from 1 January 2006; 2 ENDORSES that the amended lease of part Lot 118 Mindarie to the Mindarie

Regional Council, effective from 1 January 2006, be APPROVED; 3 AUTHORISES the Chief Executive Officer to sign and seal the agreement to

vary the lease between the owner Councils and Mindarie Regional Council and also to sign and seal the new lease, which is an annexure to the Agreement for Variation of Lease.

Chief Executive Officer advised that this issue has been agreed to by the Mindarie Regional Council. Cmr Anderson spoke to the Motion. The Motion was Put and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (5/0) Appendix 9 refers To access this attachment on electronic document, click here: Attach9brf061205.pdf Disclosure of Financial Interests

Name/Position Cmr S Smith Item No/Subject CJ273-12/05 - Tender 026-05/06 Installation and modification of


Nature of interest Financial Extent of Interest Cmr Smith owns property in the suburb of Padbury.



Disclosure of interest affecting impartiality Name/Position Cmr A Fox Item No/Subject CJ273-12/05 - Tender 026-05/06 Installation and modification of


Nature of interest Interest that may affect impartiality Extent of Interest The intersection of Hepburn Avenue/Gibson Avenue, Padbury is in

close proximity to where Cmr Fox resides. Name/Position Mr Garry Hunt – Chief Executive Officer Item No/Subject CJ273-12/05 - Tender 026-05/06 Installation and modification of


Nature of interest Interest that may affect impartiality Extent of Interest The recommended tenderer is part of a conglomerate with which Mr

Hunt had an association. CJ273 - 12/05 TENDER 026-05/06 INSTALLATION AND

MODIFICATION OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS AT SHENTON AVENUE, JOONDALUP, MCLARTY AVENUE, JOONDALUP, HODGES DRIVE, JOONDALUP, CARIDEAN STREET, HEATHRIDGE AND HEPBURN AVENUE / GIBSON AVENUE, PADBURY INTERSECTIONS – [67575]

WARD: All RESPONSIBLE Mr David Djulbic DIRECTOR: Director Infrastructure Services CJ051206_BRF.DOC:ITEM 11 PURPOSE This report is to seek the approval of Council to choose Downer Electrical Pty Ltd as the successful tenderer for the Installation and Modification of Traffic Signals at Shenton Avenue, Joondalup, Mclarty Avenue, Joondalup, Hodges Drive, Joondalup, Caridean Street, Heathridge and Hepburn Avenue / Gibson Avenue, Padbury intersections EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Tenders were advertised on 5 October 2005 through statewide public notice for the Installation and Modification of Traffic Signals at Shenton Avenue, Joondalup, Mclarty Avenue, Joondalup, Hodges Drive, Joondalup, Caridean Street, Heathridge and Hepburn Avenue / Gibson Avenue, Padbury Intersections. Tenders closed on 20 October 2005. One (1) only submission was received from:

• Downer Electrical Pty Ltd


It is recommended, in relation to Tender Number 026-05/06, that Council: 1 CHOOSES Downer Electrical Pty Ltd as the successful tenderer for the Installation

and Modification of Traffic Signals at Shenton Avenue / McLarty Avenue, Hodges Drive / Caridean Street and Hepburn Avenue / Gibson Avenue Intersections in accordance with the Lump Sum Price of $357,295 (Excluding GST). In addition the City has allocated $30,000 exclusive of GST as a contingency measure for the resultant contract;

Lump Sum Tendered Price $357,295 Exclusive of GST City of Joondalup Project Contingency $ 30,000 Exclusive of GST Total Project Cost $387,295 Exclusive of GST

2 AUTHORISE the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), on behalf of the City, to enter into a

contract with Downer Electrical Pty Ltd in accordance with their submitted tender, subject to any minor variations that may be agreed between the CEO and Downer Electrical Pty Ltd.

BACKGROUND The City of Joondalup has been successful in obtaining 2005-2006 State Black Spot Funding on a 2:1 State to Local Government contribution, for the installation of Traffic Signals at three intersection locations within the City. The proposed installations are at; Shenton Avenue –McLarty Avenue, Joondalup, Hodges Drive – Caridean Street, Heathridge and Hepburn Avenue – Gibson Avenue, Padbury. The City has included the following allocations in its 2005-2006 Five Year Capital Works Programme under Traffic Management, Black spots.

Funding Source Year Project Name State Blackspot

Municipal Total Funds

2005/06 Shenton Avenue-McLarty Avenue

$133,333 $66,667 $200,000

2005/06 Hodges Drive-Caridean Street $136,667 $68,333 $205,000 2005/06 Hepburn Avenue-Gibson

Avenue $106,667 $53,333 $160,000

The installation of traffics signals will enhance the traffic and pedestrian safety at these three ‘Blackspot’ intersections. DETAILS Tenders were advertised on 5 October 2005 through statewide public notice for the Installation and Modification of Traffic Signals at Shenton Avenue, Joondalup, Mclarty Avenue, Joondalup, Hodges Drive, Joondalup, Caridean Street, Heathridge and Hepburn Avenue / Gibson Avenue, Padbury intersections. Tenders closed on 20 October 2005. One (1) only submissions was received from:

• Downer Electrical Pty Ltd The first part of the tender evaluation process is to check conformance to the Compliance Criteria, in order to ensure that all essential requirements have been met. Tenders not meeting all the essential requirements are deemed to be non-conforming and are eliminated from further consideration.


The tender submitted by Downer Electrical Pty Ltd met the specified requirements and was assessed as a conforming tender. The second part of the evaluation process involves an independent assessment of the qualitative and quantitative criteria by each member of the Evaluation Panel. Each member of the Evaluation Panel assessed the tender submissions individually against the selection criteria using the weightings determined during the tender planning phase. The Evaluation Panel then convened to submit and discuss their assessments, leading to a ranking of each submission in order of merit. Under the City’s Contract Management Framework, the tenders were assessed by the Evaluation Panel using a weighted multi-criterion assessment system and AS 4120-1994 ‘Code of Tendering’, ensuring compliance with Regulation 18(4) of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996. The Selection Criteria for Tender Number 026-04/05 is as follows: Selection Criteria

Demonstrated understanding of the required tasks

• Appreciation of requirements • Outline of methodology

Capacity

• Details of resources for the Contract, including company details, personnel and operator skills and specialised equipment

Local infrastructure

• After hours contacts • Additional personnel and resources if required

Social and economic effects on the local community

• Maintained or increased opportunities for local employment • Maintained or increased arrangements with local service providers • Value added services to the City

Demonstrated experience in completing similar projects

• Similar work carried out, including scope of work, periods and dates, and referees

Safety management policy

• Safety procedures to be used for the Contract • Details of safety records for the past two years

Issues and options considered: Black Spot projects are subject to the approval of Main Roads Western Australia and in particular, Traffic Signal works are to be undertaken in accordance with the stringent requirements Main Roads Western Australia.


Downer Electrical Pty Ltd is the current approved Main Roads Traffic Control Infrastructure Contractor (TCIC) who undertakes and completes the Traffic Signal work requirements to the satisfaction of Main Roads Western Australia. Link to Strategic Plan: Objective 4.1 To manage the business in a responsible and accountable manner. Strategy: 4.1.1 Ensure financial viability and alignment to plan. Legislation – Statutory Provisions: The statewide public tender was advertised, opened and evaluated in accordance with the Local Government (Functions & General) Regulations 1996, where tenders are required to be publicly invited if the consideration under a contract is, or is expected to be, more, or worth more, than $50,000. The consideration for this contract exceeds the Chief Executive Officer's Delegated Authority in relation to the acceptance of tenders to a value of $250,000. Risk Management considerations: As this is a Black Spot funded project it is essential to complete the works within the financial year in compliance with the requirements of the funding. The recommended Contractor is able to meet the requirements of the funding, compliance with Main Roads Western Australia and the Contract. Financial/Budget Implications: Available Funds Project No. 6757 Shenton Avenue/McLarty Avenue (Muni) $ 66,667 Exclusive of GST Project No. 6763 Shenton Avenue/McLarty Avenue (SBS) $133,333 Exclusive of GST Project No. 6758 Hodges Drive/Caridean Street (Muni) $ 68,333 Exclusive of GST Project No. 6764 Hodges Drive/Caridean Street (SBS) $136,667 Exclusive of GST Project No. 6759 Hepburn Avenue/Gibson Avenue (Muni) $ 53,333 Exclusive of GST Project No. 6765 Hepburn Avenue/Gibson Avenue (SBS) $106,667 Exclusive of GST Total Available Funds $565,000 Exclusive of GST Tender Lump Sum Price $357,295 Exclusive of GST City of Joondalup Project Contingency $ 30,000 Exclusive of GST YTD Amount $ 43,200 Exclusive of GST Total Project Costs $430,495 Exclusive of GST The City of Joondalup is a registered business entity for GST purposes. The nett effect on the price submitted by the successful tenderer is that the City pays GST but is able to claim an input tax credit for the amount of GST paid. Policy Implications: While there are no specific policy implications, the City’s current practice is to encourage local business in the purchasing and tendering process and this has been applied and incorporated into the selection criteria. However, it is noted that the recommended (and only) Respondent is located in Welshpool which is not within the City or the Region.


Regional Significance: The Black Spot programme has regional implications for Road Safety, and funding of projects is based on a positive benefit cost ratio. This tender represents projects that are a major part of the approved State Black Spot programme for Joondalup (2005-2006). Sustainability Implications: From an economic sustainability perspective, the installation of traffic lights is jointly funded on a two to one basis by the Main Roads Western Australia and the City respectively. The ongoing maintenance costs are funded by Main Roads Western Australia. The installation of the traffic lights at these black spot locations have been identified by Main Roads as part of a programme to reduce traffic accidents, which is positive from a social sustainability perspective. Consultation: Not Applicable. COMMENT The Evaluation Panel considered that although Downer Electrical Pty Ltd was the only tenderer who submitted an offer, and being the approved TCIC contractor for the Main Roads Western Australia, Downer Electrical Pty Ltd has the capability, appropriate infrastructure and associated resources to carry out the work on a best value for money basis in a competent and timely manner. Value for money can be demonstrated as the offer received from Downer Electrical Pty Ltd is below the allocated budget (Main Roads Western Australia two thirds and the City one third) and is in line with previous work of this type carried out by Downer Electrical Pty Ltd. The Evaluation Panel therefore recommend Downer Electrical Pty Ltd as the nominated Contractor. ATTACHMENTS Nil. VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority MOVED Cmr Anderson, SECONDED Cmr Clough that Council, in relation to Tender Number 026-05/06: 1 CHOOSES Downer Electrical Pty Ltd as the successful tenderer for the

Installation and Modification of Traffic Signals at Shenton Avenue / McLarty Avenue, Hodges Drive / Caridean Street and Hepburn Avenue / Gibson Avenue Intersections in accordance with the Lump Sum Price of $357,295 (Excluding GST). In addition the City has allocated $30,000 exclusive of GST as a contingency measure for the resultant contract;


Lump Sum Tendered Price $357,295 Exclusive of GST City of Joondalup Project Contingency $ 30,000 Exclusive of GST Total Project Cost $387,295 Exclusive of GST

2 AUTHORISES the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), on behalf of the City, to enter

into a contract with Downer Electrical Pty Ltd in accordance with their submitted tender, subject to any minor variations that may be agreed between the CEO and Downer Electrical Pty Ltd.

The Motion was Put and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (5/0) CJ274 - 12/05 PROPOSED PARKING SCHEME AMENDMENT –

BOAS AVENUE, JOONDALUP – [07190] [07076] WARD: Lakeside RESPONSIBLE Mr David Djulbic DIRECTOR: Infrastructure Services CJ051206_BRF.DOC:ITEM 12 PURPOSE To amend the City of Joondalup Parking Scheme in accordance with Clause 33 of the City’s Parking Local Law 1998 by changing the current one hour parking restriction on four bays to a heavy vehicle bay in Boas Avenue Joondalup. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Department of Planning and Infrastructure Vehicle Licensing Centre (VLC) located in Boas Avenue Joondalup, provides the public service of testing for and approving the issue of motor vehicle drivers licences. The driver’s licence tests include heavy vehicles. When the Vehicle Licensing Centre commenced at Joondalup, an arrangement was made for heavy vehicles to park in the southern indented approach to the parking station entry in Davidson Terrace, south of Boas Avenue. The logical route and one most used to access this location, is through the parking station adjacent the City Administration Building. Large and heavy vehicles being driven by learner drivers through a busy parking area represents a significant safety hazard. The safety concerns with the practice of heavy vehicles driving through the car park and need to address this matter were raised with officers of the VLC who have submitted a request for a heavy vehicle bay in another more suitable location close to the VLC. In accordance with clause 33 of the City’s Parking Local Law 1998, which provides for “Establishing and Amending the Parking Scheme”, it is recommended that Council: AMENDS the current parking restriction – “One Hour Parking Monday to Friday 8.00 am to 5.30 pm Saturday 8.00 am to 12.30 pm” located on the north side of Boas Avenue east of Davidson Terrace, to “15 Minutes Parking Heavy Vehicles 3 tonne Minimum Weight Monday to Friday 7.00 am to 5.30 pm and 30 minutes Parking Saturday 7.00 am to 5.30 pm.” as shown in Attachment 1 to Report CJ274-12/05.


BACKGROUND The VLC located in Boas Avenue Joondalup, provides the public service assessing and testing applicants for wanting to gain a vehicle drivers licence for various classes of motor vehicle ranging from motor cycles, cars and heavy vehicles. When the Vehicle Licensing Centre commenced at Joondalup, an arrangement was made for heavy vehicles to park in the southern indented approach to the parking station entry in Davidson Terrace, south of Boas Avenue. There has been no formalisation or proper allocation of a heavy vehicle bay in this location. The logical route and one most used to access this location, is through the parking station adjacent the City Administration Building. Large and heavy vehicles being driven by learner drivers through a busy parking area represents a significant safety hazard. This was raised as a concern with the appropriate officers of the VLC. The discussion also included what they require to continue their service to the public and the long term expectation that large vehicles services should ideally be located outside the Joondalup Central Business District possibly in a semi industrial area. It was suggested that whatever arrangements are made to provide an alternative location at this time should be viewed as an interim arrangement and more permanent facilities such as a licencing sub centre should be sought outside the CBD. The VLC advised that there are currently two heavy vehicle learn to drive businesses registered to operate at Joondalup and this number will double to four on 3 January 2006. Consequently, the number of heavy vehicle movements around the Joondalup Licencing Centre are expected to increase proportionately. The location of the proposed Heavy Vehicle bay has been identified as being most suitable as it is:

• in close proximity to the VLC; • adjacent a vacant block of land; and • vehicles entering onto Boas Avenue from the car parks have clear sight of any

vehicles approaching on their right. • Drivers can also gain clear sight of any vehicles approaching on their left.

Attachment 1 shows what will result with adoption of the recommended amendment DETAILS Issues and options considered: The proposed parking scheme amendment has been progressed in consideration of the following:

• Safety of all car park users and minimising opportunities for accident and personal injury is of paramount importance.

• There is a demonstrated need to provide an alternative, more safe location for heavy

vehicles to park in close proximity to the Boas Avenue Licensing Centre, to facilitate testing of learner drivers.

• The provision of an on street parking bay for heavy vehicles in the Joondalup Central

Business District (CBD) should be viewed as an interim arrangement, as heavy vehicle movements in the CBD should be kept to a minimum. The licence testing and supporting office for heavy vehicle tests should be located in a semi industrial area.


Link to Strategic Plan: The recommendations in this report are supported by the following objective and strategy in the City’s Strategic Plan 2003-2008. Objective: 3.3 To continue to meet changing demographic needs. Strategy: 3.3.2 Integrate plans to support community and business development. Legislation – Statutory Provisions: The City of Joondalup Parking Local Law (1998) was made in keeping with the requirements of Section 3.12 (Procedure for Making Local Laws) of the Local Government Act (1995). Clause 33 of the City of Joondalup Parking Local Law (1998) provides for: “Establishing and Amending the Parking Scheme 33 The local government may by resolution constitute, determine vary and indicate by

signs: (a) prohibitions; (b) regulations; and (c) restrictions on the parking and stopping of vehicles of a specified class or classes in all roads, specified roads or specified parts of roads in the parking region at all times or at all specified times, but this authority shall not be exercised in a manner inconsistent with the provisions of this Local Law or any other written law.”

Risk Management considerations: The provision of a parking bay in Boas Avenue, designated for heavy vehicles, will remove the need for such vehicles to drive through the car park, adjacent to the Civic Administration Centre, to access the current bay in Davidson Terrace and any risk associated with this practice. Financial/Budget Implications:

Account No: 1.7230.4615.0529.999 Budget Item: Parking Control Signs Budget Amount: $68,090.00 YTD Amount: $11,354.00 Actual Cost: $ 900.00 (estimated)

Policy Implications: Not Applicable Regional Significance: Not Applicable


Sustainability Implications: The amendment of the current parking restrictions in Boas Avenue as recommended, will improve safety for all motorists and pedestrians who use the car park by removing the need for large and heavy vehicles to drive through the car park. Consultation: Discussions have been held with representatives of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure – Driver Services concerning the driving of heavy vehicles through the City’s Parking Station to access parking in Davidson Terrace. The driving of heavy vehicles through a parking area was acknowledged as a potential safety risk to all users of the facility and a valid reason for prohibiting heavy vehicles from the car park. COMMENT The location of the proposed Heavy Vehicle Bay in Boas Avenue is considered the most appropriate to meet the requirements of learn to drive businesses registered to operate at the Joondalup Vehicle Licensing Centre. The location of the proposed bay has been discussed with officers of the VLC and is supported by them. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 Map showing the location of proposed parking bay for heavy vehicles. VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority MOVED Cmr Anderson, SECONDED Cmr Clough that Council in accordance with Clause 33 of the City’s Parking Local Law 1998, AMENDS the current parking restriction – “One Hour Parking Monday to Friday 8.00 am to 5.30 pm Saturday 8.00 am to 12.30 pm” located on the north side of Boas Avenue east of Davidson Terrace, to “15 Minutes Parking Heavy Vehicles 3 tonne Minimum Weight Monday to Friday 7.00 am to 5.30 pm and 30 minutes Parking Saturday 7.00 am to 5.30 pm.” as shown in Attachment 1 to Report CJ274-12/05. The Motion was Put and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (5/0) Appendix 10 refers To access this attachment on electronic document, click here: Attach10agn131205.pdf

Attach10agn131205.pdf


CJ275 - 12/05 PROPOSED PARKING SCHEME AMENDMENT -

BLUE MOUNTAIN DRIVE, JOONDALUP – [07190] [01602]

WARD: Lakeside RESPONSIBLE Mr David Djulbic DIRECTOR: Infrastructure Services CJ051206_BRF.DOC:ITEM 13 PURPOSE To amend the City of Joondalup Parking Scheme in accordance with Clause 33 of the City’s Parking Local Law 1998 by installing a School Bus Bay in Blue Mountain Drive adjacent the Joondalup Primary School. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Principal of the Joondalup Primary School has requested that the City create a school bus bay in Blue Mountain Drive adjacent to the school to overcome safety concerns with the bus entering the off street parking area and having to reverse out. Safety concerns have arisen due to the parking area being used by parents and young children being in the car park while the bus is reversing. Following investigation of the request, it is supported in the interests of enhancing safety by minimising the opportunity for accident and injury to people using the school parking facility. In keeping with clause 33 of the City’s Parking Local Law 1998, which provides for “Establishing and Amending the Parking Scheme”, it is recommended that Council AMENDS the City of Joondalup Parking Scheme by the installation of a “10 Minutes Parking School Bus set down and pick up Mon to Fri 8.45am to 9.15 am 2.45pm to 3.15 pm School Days Only” parking restriction on the south east side of Blue Mountain Drive adjacent the Joondalup Primary School. BACKGROUND The City has received a request to install a school bus bay in Blue Mountain Drive adjacent to the Joondalup Primary School. The request comes from safety concerns about the current practice of reversing a small school bus (13 seats) out from an on site parking area amongst other vehicles, parents and students. While care is taken to minimise possibility of accidents and injury, it is recognised that the situation could be significantly improved if the bus did not have to enter the car park and reverse out between cars, parents and children. The request has been investigated and a suitable location identified in an existing embayment adjacent the school in Blue Mountain Drive. Attachment 1 shows what will result with adoption of the recommended amendment to the City’s Parking Scheme


DETAILS Issues and options considered: The proposed parking scheme amendment has been progressed in consideration of the following:

• Safety of all car park users and minimising opportunities for accident and personal injury is of paramount importance.

• There is a demonstrated need to provide an alternative, more safe location than in

the school car park for the small bus to set down and pick up school children each school day.

Link to Strategic Plan: The recommendations in this report are supported by the following objective and strategy in the City’s Strategic Plan 2003-2008. Objective: 3.3 To continue to meet changing demographic needs. Strategy: 3.3.2 Integrate plans to support community and business development. Legislation – Statutory Provisions: The City of Joondalup Parking Local Law (1998) was made in keeping with the requirements of Section 3.12 (Procedure for Making Local Laws) of the Local Government Act (1995). Clause 33 of the City of Joondalup Parking Local Law (1998) provides for: “Establishing and Amending the Parking Scheme 33 The local government may by resolution constitute, determine vary and indicate by

signs: (a) prohibitions; (b) regulations; and (c) restrictions on the parking and stopping of vehicles of a specified class or classes in all roads, specified roads or specified parts of roads in the parking region at all times or at all specified times, but this authority shall not be exercised in a manner inconsistent with the provisions of this Local Law or any other written law.”

Risk Management considerations: The reversing of a bus within a school parking area is recognised as a potentially dangerous practice. Removing the need to reverse a bus within the car park will reduce the risk of personal injury or property damage.


Financial/Budget Implications:

Account No: 1.7230.4615.0529.999 Budget Item: Parking Control Signs Budget Amount: $68,090.00 YTD Amount: $11,354.00 Actual Cost: $ 300.00 (estimated)

Policy Implications: Not Applicable Regional Significance: Not Applicable Sustainability Implications: The amendment of the current parking restrictions and prohibitions in Blue Mountain Drive as recommended, will improve safety for school children and promote better traffic flow within this street. Consultation: This matter has been discussed with the Joondalup Primary School Principal who made the request following an investigation by an Education Department Officer responsible for provision of school bus services and associated safety. COMMENT It is considered that the request is justified and should be supported in the interests of increasing safety. Accordingly, the installation of an appropriate school bus bay in Blue Mountain Drive Joondalup is recommended. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 Map showing the location of proposed school bus parking bay in Blue

Mountain Drive, Joondalup. VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority MOVED Cmr Clough, SECONDED Cmr Anderson that Council in accordance with Clause 33 of the City of Joondalup Parking Local Law 1998, AMENDS the City of Joondalup Parking Scheme by installation of a “10 Minutes Parking School Bus set down and pick up Monday to Friday 8.45am to 9.15 am 2.45pm to 3.15 pm School Days Only” parking restriction on the south east side of Blue Mountain Drive adjacent the Joondalup Primary School. The Motion was Put and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (5/0) Appendix 11 refers To access this attachment on electronic document, click here: Attach10brf061205.pdf



CJ276 - 12/05 PROPOSED NORTHERN REGION COMMUNITY

SAFETY AND CRIME PREVENTION PARTNERSHIP - OFFICE OF CRIME PREVENTION – [23195] [63511]

WARD: All RESPONSIBLE Mr David Djulbic DIRECTOR: Infrastructure Services CJ051206_BRF.DOC:ITEM 14 PURPOSE To advise Council of progress made in development of a Northern Region Community Safety and Crime Prevention Partnership Agreement (the agreement) with the Office of Crime Prevention (OCP) and seek approval to enter into such an agreement based on the principles, roles and responsibilities detailed in the attached Draft Agreement. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The report provides an update on progress made in establishing an agreement with the OCP. A draft agreement has been prepared with input from representatives of the Cities of Bayswater, Joondalup, Stirling and Wanneroo. The draft agreement is considered to address the concerns including cost and responsibility shifts identified with the initial agreement that was prepared by the OCP. The draft agreement stipulates that there will be no cost or responsibility shift from the State Government to the local governments party to the agreement. The draft agreement also sets out the purpose, principles and responsibilities of the parties. Important elements of the agreement include initial funding to cover the cost of preparing Crime Prevention Plans for the four local governments party to the agreement, plus the provision of a Regional Coordinator fully funded by the OCP and working under the direction of the proposed Northern Region Community Safety and Crime Prevention Committee. Each local government would establish its own sub committee and have representation on the Regional Committee. Details of the Role of the Regional Coordinator and broad issues are outlined in Attachment 1 – “Summary of Key Points - Northern Region Community Safety and Crime Prevention Partnership Agreement.” Progression of the proposed Northern Region Community Safety and Crime Prevention Partnership Agreement with the OCP based on the principles, roles and responsibilities as outlined in the draft document, is supported. It is therefore recommended that Council APPROVES the City being a signatory to the proposed Northern Region Community Safety and Crime Prevention Partnership Agreement with the Office of Crime Prevention based on the principles, roles and responsibilities as outlined in the draft agreement being Attachment 2 to Report CJ276-12/05. BACKGROUND The OCP has since 2002 tried to enter into Crime Prevention Partnership Agreements with all 144 local governments throughout the State. Whilst approximately half the local governments have entered into such agreements, many others have had major concerns with what was proposed in the agreement document as prepared by OCP. The Cities of


Joondalup, Wanneroo and Stirling have been working together to achieve an acceptable approach and agreement document that addressed the concerns. The City of Bayswater has joined with the other Cities as it shares the concerns and is the other local government that comprises the West Metropolitan Police District. Those concerns included:

• Inadequate funding; • Cost shifting; and • Responsibility shifting.

Officers of the Cities also agree that Local Government:

• Is not best placed to lead crime prevention strategies; and • Is already performing many functions in the agreement and see little benefit in signing

the agreement. Officers of the four Cities have been working on producing an agreement document that addresses the identified concerns and which is acceptable to the OCP. Discussions have been on going between the parties and the local government regional approach that covers two Metropolitan Police Districts and as outlined in the proposed agreement is supported. The regional approach also fits well with the Police, as the four Cities comprise two adjacent Metropolitan Police Districts where very good working relations are well established. All local governments regardless of population or area currently receive a $10,000 grant on signing a Crime Prevention Agreement with the OCP. The acceptance of a Northern Region Coordinator, fully funded by the OCP, would be a significant step in addressing this funding disparity between large and small local governments. The current imbalance of base funding is demonstrated in Attachment 3 “Metropolitan Police Districts, Local Government Population and Office of Crime Prevention Base Grant Allocation.” The North West and West Metropolitan Police Districts are each comprised of two local governments but have estimated populations of 265,467 and 237,715 respectively. The combined grant available to the local governments to develop Crime Prevention Plans in these districts is $20,000. The Central Metropolitan Police District is comprised of nine local governments with an estimated combined population of 124,021. The combined grant available to the local governments in that district is $90,000. DETAILS Issues and options considered: The City has continued to demonstrate its commitment to community safety and crime prevention and spends approximately $4.5M annually on various programs like City Watch, youth services, application of Crime Prevention through Environmental Design, graffiti removal Ranger activities and several educational based programs including Constable Care and Junior Ranger to name a few. The OCP has not recognised this significant contribution in the past and expressed concern in relation to the City’s crime prevention. It is considered that the OCP have not been fully informed of what local governments already do to assist their communities to increase the perception of safety and prevent crime. The proposed agreement will address this matter.


Link to Strategic Plan: Strategic Plan Objectives: 1.4 To work with the community to enhance safety and security in a healthy

environment. Strategies: 1.4.1 Continue to implement the Safer Community Program

Legislation – Statutory Provisions: Not Applicable Risk Management considerations: Not Applicable Financial/Budget Implications: The Office of Crime Prevention have previously advised that crime prevention initiative grants will not be allocated to local governments that have not signed a Crime Prevention Agreement. This advice proved correct when the City sought a grant for joint funding of a youth bus in 2004. Policy Implications: Not Applicable Regional Significance: The matter of crime prevention has been progressed on a Regional basis initially with the Cities of Stirling and Wanneroo. The City of Bayswater has more recently been included as together with the City of Stirling they form part of the West Metropolitan Police District. The Cities of Joondalup and Wanneroo together comprise the North West Metropolitan Police District. Sustainability Implications: Progression of Community Safety and Crime Prevention Partnership with the OCP will enable funding to be sought for crime prevention projects. A reduction in the rate of crime within the City would lead to an increased perception of safety and better quality of life for residents. Consultation: The draft agreement has been prepared with input from representatives of the Cities of Bayswater, Joondalup, Stirling and Wanneroo. Regular reports have been provided to the City representatives through the North Metropolitan Zone Committee of WALGA where various components of the original agreement proposed by the OCP, were raised as a concern.


COMMENT It is expected that the opportunity to enter into the proposed Northern Region Agreement would be welcomed by the OCP as it would add approximately 503,000 people, or more than 1/3 of the population of the Perth metropolitan area, under Crime Prevention Agreements through their local governments. The four Cities of Joondalup, Wanneroo, Bayswater and Stirling make up the North West and West Metropolitan Police Districts. It is understood that the Police Superintendents of both Police Districts support the proposed regional approach to crime prevention. Equity of funding under the grant system applied by the OCP was identified as a concern. The concern with the base funding is readily identified when comparing the six (6) Metropolitan Police Districts, the local governments that comprise each Police District, the population of each and base funding that is provided to those local governments. From when this matter was first discussed at the North Metropolitan Zone Committee with representatives of the Cities of Wanneroo, Stirling and Joondalup, it was considered that the three Cities working together would achieve better outcomes for their respective residents. With the development of the proposed Northern Region Community Safety and Crime Prevention Agreement, it is expected that the level of cooperation and prospective benefits for all the parties will increase as they all work to achieve a common goal. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 Summary of Key Points – Draft Northern Region Community Safety and

Crime Prevention Partnership Agreement. Attachment 2 Draft Northern Region Community Safety and Crime Prevention

Partnership Agreement. Attachment 3 Metropolitan Police Districts, Local Government Population and Office of

Crime Prevention Base Grant Allocation. VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION: That Council APPROVES the City being a signatory to the proposed Northern Region Community Safety and Crime Prevention Partnership Agreement with the Office of Crime Prevention, based on the principles, roles and responsibilities as outlined in the draft agreement being Attachment 2 to Report CJ276-12/05. Moved Cmr Clough, Seconded Cmr Anderson that Council ENDORSES the proposed Draft Northern Region Community Safety And Crime Prevent Partnership Agreement which is based on the principles, roles and responsibilities as outlined in the draft Agreement being Attachment 2 to Report CJ276-12/05 as the basis for negotiations with the Office of Crime Prevention for a regional approach to Community Safety and Crime Prevention for the region encompassing the local governments of Joondalup, Wanneroo, Stirling and Bayswater.


AMENDMENT MOVED Cmr Smith, SECONDED Cmr Anderson that the following words be added to the end of the Motion as follows: “……. subject to clarification that the Co-ordinator position is employed and under the direction of one of the partners to the agreement.” Cmr Smith spoke to the Amendment. The Amendment was Put and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (5/0) The Original Motion as amended, being: That Council ENDORSES the proposed Draft Northern Region Community Safety And Crime Prevent Partnership Agreement which is based on the principles, roles and responsibilities as outlined in the draft Agreement being Attachment 2 to Report CJ276-12/05 as the basis for negotiations with the Office of Crime Prevention for a regional approach to Community Safety and Crime Prevention for the region encompassing the local governments of Joondalup, Wanneroo, Stirling and Bayswater, subject to clarification that the Co-ordinator position is employed and under the direction of one of the partners to the agreement. was Put and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (5/0) Appendix 12 refers To access this attachment on electronic document, click here: Attach12brf061205.pdf Disclosure of interest affecting impartiality Name/Position Mr Peter Hoar - Coordinator Waste Management and Environmental

Services Item No/Subject CJ277-12/05 – Waste Management Strategy Review 2005 Nature of interest Interest that may affect impartiality Extent of Interest Mr Hoar is under consideration by the Mindarie Regional Council to

attend an overseas trip relating to waste management. CJ277 - 12/05 WASTE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY REVIEW 2005 –

[36958] [53119] WARD: All RESPONSIBLE Mr David Djulbic DIRECTOR: Infrastructure Services CJ051206_BRF.DOC:ITEM 15 PURPOSE To seek Council’s adoption of the City’s revised Waste Management Strategy 2005.



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Council adopted a waste management strategy in July 2000. The strategy adopted a long and short term approach to its waste services mainly because of the unknowns attached to the new Resource Recovery Facility (RRF) including cost of the RRF and the issue of the collection formats. The RRF is now scheduled to be constructed in 2007 and anticipated to accept waste in 2008. With the information being provided by the Mindarie Regional Council and the information in Cardno BSD report ‘City of Joondalup Waste Management Strategy’, April 2005, it is now possible to provide the Council with a revised waste management strategy. Following Council decision to review the City’s Waste Management Strategy, report, CJ131-06/05, 28 June 2005, a new Strategy has been developed and supports the following directions: • Establishes a strategic direction for waste management in the City of Joondalup by

adopting a Statement of Intent consistent with State and Regional vision statements on ‘Zero Waste’;

• Implementation of appropriate strategies for the City’s collection, processing and disposal services to minimize environmental impacts and reduce the City’s reliance on landfill;

• Coordination of State and regional waste management directions on those issues affecting the City;

• Development and implementation of a community waste education and awareness program.

The public was consulted for a six week period during the review period on a self reporting format, which included online surveys, mail out packages and full page advertisement with a brief response sheet that could be cut out of the community news. A total of 1300 responses were received consisting of 91 full surveys and 1,209 abbreviated responses from the Joondalup Times newspaper advertisement. The community provided excellent feedback on the Statement of Intent as 96% of respondents agreed with it. The analysis of the telephone survey showed that approximately 3 out of 4 respondents preferred the universal recycling wheelie bin service option. On the issue of willingness to pay, 46.5% of respondents were willing to pay extra for the resource recovery and the universal kerbside recycling service. Twelve percent were willing to go part the way and 33% were not willing to pay any more for an enhanced service. These results were obtained from question 7 of the random telephone survey and was focussed purely on costs. However, when the question on costs was coupled with the enhanced service to meet their needs and wishes, question 8, 78% were willing to accept the package of resource recovery and a universal kerbside recycling service, option 3. Resource recovery is the key driver in the region’s push to divert waste from landfill. However, it needs to be acknowledged that resource recovery is not a well understood concept in the community. The community emphasis is still on kerbside recycling as the way to reduce waste to landfill and recover resources. The strategy addresses this issue in Objective 4 ‘Community Waste Education and Awareness’.


It is recommended that Council: 1 ADOPTS the Waste Management Strategy 2005 forming Attachment 1 to Report

CJ277-12/05; 2 NOTES the strong public support for the introduction of a universal recycling wheelie

bin; 3 LISTS for consideration as part of the 2006/2007 budgetary deliberations,

implementation of a universal recycling wheelie bin service to all residents. BACKGROUND The 2000 Waste Management Strategy recognized there were considerable advances being made in waste technology and that this technology would reduce the community’s reliance on landfill. The Mindarie Regional Council was considering a plan to adopt this technology. The costs at the time were unknown although it was recognized that the cost would be considerably higher than landfilling. There was also further consideration required in relation single bin recycling option adopted by the City of Stirling. The strategy recognized these issues and adopted a short and long and term strategy. In effect, the strategy maintained the current level of service until information and timeframes became available for the introduction of the RRF. The RRF is now scheduled for construction in 2007 and anticipated to accept waste in 2008. With the information being provided by the Mindarie Regional Council and the information in Cardno BSD report ‘City of Joondalup Waste Management Strategy’, April 2005, it is now possible to provide the Council with a revised waste management strategy. At an operational level it is noted that complaints are still being received about the recycling bag service and the inequity of residents having to pay extra for a recycling bin. DETAILS Issues and options considered: In consideration of the above, a waste management strategy has been developed to address these outstanding issues and to set a way forward that will reduce our reliance on landfill and allow enough flexibility in the service to adopt waste technologies and concepts as they become practicable and affordable. The review includes: • Adoption of a strategic direction for waste management in the City of Joondalup by

adopting a Statement of Intent consistent with State and Regional vision statements on ‘Zero Waste’;

• Implementation of appropriate strategies for the City’s collection, processing and disposal services to minimize environmental impacts and reduce the City’s reliance on landfill;

• Coordination of State and regional waste management directions on those issues affecting the City;

• Development and implementation of a community waste education and awareness program.


Strategy‘s Key Drivers 1 Statement of Intent Consistent with the State Government’s strategic direction and Vision Statement ‘Towards Zero Waste In Western Australia,’ it is proposed Council adopt the Statement of Intent. ‘Towards Zero Waste While Providing A Comprehensive and Sustainable Waste Service’. These statements aspire to a waste free society. The statements strive for a result that will benefit all Western Australians. It also recognizes that future generations are considered in the decisions we make today. The second part of the statement ensures that the City’s residents are provided with a user friendly service and one that needs to pass affordability and comprehensive service tests. 2 Resource Recovery The City, in conjunction with the Mindarie Regional Council, has adopted a program to reduce waste to landfill. A RRF that will process waste in the domestic green wheelie bin and produce a compost and/or green energy is scheduled to be built at Neerabup in 2007 and anticipated to accept waste by March 2008. The project may include up to three stages, the first stage a 100,000 tonne plant where 50% of the City’s green wheelie bin contents will be processed, the rest will be landfilled until the second stage is built. The process will ultimately recover up to 70% of the waste delivered to it and produce a compost and/or green energy. This diversion of the organic waste stream from landfill will be a major step forward in the reducing environmental impacts of landfills. Resource recovery is the key driver in the region’s diversion of waste from landfill. It needs to be acknowledged that resource recovery is not a well understood concept in the community. Their focus is on kerbside recycling as the way to reduce waste to landfill and retrieve resources. The strategy addresses this issue in Objective 4 ‘Community Waste Education and Awareness’. 3 Kerbside Recycling For sometime the City’s residents have been requesting an enhanced recycling service focusing on the introduction of a recycling wheelie bin. The current bag system is not user friendly as bags blow away in the wind and are difficult to manage. The popularity of the bag system has been an issue for sometime and a previous community survey; January 2003 (Research Solutions) indicated a strong community support for the introduction of a recycling wheelie bin service. Currently, the bag system is a universal system and costs are absorbed into the rubbish rate. The bag system has a participation rate of approximately 30%. The residents who have accessed the user pays wheelie bin recycling service participate in the service at a rate of 76%. The arrangement for this service is for the resident to purchase the recycling bin and pay extra for annual service charge in addition to the rubbish rate. Residents have expressed the view that the system is inequitable as the residents choosing to do the right thing are being financially penalized.


Issues 3.1 Increase in recycling tonnages The Cardno BSD report indicated an increase in recyclables recovered from the introduction of the recycling wheelie bins from 6300 to 14,500 tonnes at a participation rate of around 70% to 75%. This is based on data from the Southern Metropolitan Regional Council of 0.273 tonnes per household per year. To cope with the increase in recycling tonnages the recycling sorting plant will need to have an additional storage area constructed. A sum of $500,000 has been allocated in the estimates for this additional space and necessary upgrade. At a recent officers meeting on 25 November between the tripartite members it was agreed in-principle that an upgrade was required including extra storage space. Further discussions will be held on the matter with a view to enter into a new agreement based on the previous. 3.2 Buy back plan The 2000 Strategy adopted a user pays recycling wheelie bin service. In order to participate the ratepayer had to buy the bin at $84.70 including GST and pay extra for the servicing of the bin at $35.20 per year. This raises an issue of equity if the universal recycling bin service is adopted. Those ratepayers who have tried to do the right thing by purchasing a bin will feel they have been unfairly treated and will more than likely expect compensation for their purchase. It is therefore proposed to buy back the bins that have been purchased by the ratepayers. An amount of approximately $100,000 has been worked into the model to compensate ratepayers. A plan for the compensation payment method should be a consideration in the plan to implement recycling wheelie bins and be the subject of future budget deliberations. 3.3 Single bin recycling The City of Stirling introduced the concept of single bin recycling. It is a unique sorting technology that chases the organics with limited retrieval of the traditional recyclables. The system does have full retrieval of cans and aluminium but plastics and other residues are baled and sent to landfill. Paper and cardboard are used in the composting of the organics. Composting is done aerobically in open windrows on an Atlas owned farm in Calingari. City of Stirling and Atlas Group are acknowledged as one of the leaders in the field and has achieved 65% diversion rate from landfill of the domestic waste stream. There are considerable cost savings with the system as there is no need to operate a second collection and sorting service. The City of Stirling residents have accepted the system although there was some scepticism when the system was introduced. Criticism of the system have included it as being nothing more than above ground landfill to achieving landfill reduction targets and improving crop production. The system is not considered suitable for the City because: • The Atlas Group, owners of the technology, are not in the shortlist of tenders (late bid) for

the Mindarie Regional Council resource recovery project, first stage; • The Mindarie Regional Council does not have access to a farm for its use and the area to

mature the compost in open windrows; • The Mindarie Regional Council has requested that the member councils maintain some

form of kerbside recycling. The design criteria for the RRF will be based on bin analysis data and assuming that kerbside recycling systems are in place;


• City of Stirling will not deposit waste into the first or second stage of the RRF; • Under new State Government initiative zero waste plans will be required to be submitted

by all local governments. While Stirling’s system is seen as a first and significant step to achieving zero waste, zero waste plans will more than likely include the requirement to have some form of traditional kerbside recycling retrieval. The single bin concept has significant retrieval problems when it comes to paper products and plastics. This is seen as a significant threat to the concept.

Link to Strategic Plan: The review and further development of the City’s Waste Management Strategy links with the Strategic Plan as follows: Objective 2 To effectively and efficiently mange waste. Strategy 2.2.1 Further develop and implement recycling strategies; Strategy 2.2.2 Plan for the development of waste management. The Statement of Intent is consistent with the City’s Strategic plan and will fulfil the strategies once implemented. Legislation – Statutory Provisions: The State Government is proposing new waste management bill and the introduction of zero waste plans. These plans will require local government to conform to the Government’s direction on zero waste. Details of the plans have not been released although discussions have included the need to retrieve as much as possible from the waste stream and it will likely involve kerbside recycling and resource recovery. The City’s waste strategy has the flexibility to work towards zero waste goals. Risk Management considerations: The RRF is at the tender stage and the technology and costs will not be known until the tenders have been assessed and the final contract signed. The Mindarie Regional Council has commissioned Deloittes Tomahatsu Consultants to project the costs into a model which the member Councils have used in their deliberations on the project. The model determines the non-processable and processable costs of $49.51 and $92.58 respectively. These figures have been used to predict the costs of the options for the waste service. This, of course could change depending on the contracted prices. The calculations for costings are based on the tonnages extracted from the Cardo BSD report titled ‘City of Joondalup Waste Management Strategy Report’ March 2005’; Waste Management costs are based on the Service Level Agreements with the City of Wanneroo and the Cleansweep recycling collection contract for the 2004/2005 financial year. Processing costs for the recycling sorting plant, Wangara, is based on $25 per tonne under the terms and conditions of the Tripartite Agreement between the Cities of Joondalup, Swan and Wanneroo.


From the indications of the survey the adoption of the Strategy will be a popular move, however there is an underlying threat to this ‘good news’ story. Those rate payers who have been willing recyclers and have purchased a bin will no doubt feel unfairly treated if the strategy is adopted and there is no offer to buy the bins back or provide a credit on their rate notice. This issue is further addressed in the buy back plan in section 3.2. Financial/Budget Implications: A waste management model has been developed based on the 2004/2005 budget to predict the rubbish rate for introduction of the first stage resource recovery, the universal recycling wheelie bin service, and is based on the following assumptions:

• The recycling collection contract is based on $0.80 a drive by; • The City’s residences will increase tonnages to 14,500 and sorted at $25 per tonne; • The Resources Recovery Facility processable waste fee of $92.58 and the non

processable fee (landfill) of $49.51; • Adoption of the voluntary bin buy back plan $100,000; • An allocation of $500,000 for construction of extra storage space and an upgrade of

the sorting equipment at the recycling sorting plant; and • No changes to the other services that impact on costs.

The estimated rubbish rate is between $195 to $205 per household following the introduction of the first stage resource recovery and the implementation of the recycling wheelie bin service in today’s dollars. Policy Implications: The attached waste management strategy will have some policy implications as the new direction for waste collection and disposal is implemented. Subject to the introduction of recycling wheelie bins and as the resource recovery technology is introduced there will be a need to amend and introduce new policies and strategies to cope with the paradigm shift in the way we manage our waste. Regional Significance: A strategic approach to waste management is critical in the development of best practice initiatives. Through education, consultation and adoption of zero waste principles stakeholders such as the Mindarie Regional Council and others can provide the City’s residents and the region with a more sustainable waste strategy. Sustainability Implications: The State Government through the Statement of Strategic Direction for Waste Management in Western Australia, September 2004, has set an action agenda for how we can move towards a waste-free society, embracing the vision of ‘Towards zero waste in Western Australia’. To achieve this requires a shift toward a closed loop economy, where we optimise consumption and where wastes from one part of society become the raw materials for another. Accurate data on the waste streams will be required in order to monitor progress and identify opportunities for improvements. Programs will also be needed to support waste avoidance initiatives and develop markets for recycled materials (Hope for the Future: the Western Australian state sustainability strategy).


In order to implement strategic direction for waste, the City of Joondalup has developed a Waste Strategy to maximise recovery of the organic waste stream and improve the recycling collection service to collect more tonnes of recyclables, introduce a user friendly system and make the system fairer for all users. Consultation: In order to set future waste management directions and provide independent advice on the City’s waste management services, a report was commissioned from Cardno BSD Consultants. The report reviewed and costed the current services and provided a set of options including an enhanced kerbside recycling service and provided information on the impact of Resource Recovery Facility (RRF) into the region. Council received a report and adopted the recommendations on 28 June 2005. The report outlined the waste service options and a two phase public consultation program. The public consultation phase ran for 42 days and included: • weekly advertisement of the survey in the Joondalup Times during the consultation

period; • online survey with an associated information package; • a mail out package for those who did not have internet access; • full page colour advertisement for the kerbside recycling options on was run on 13 and

20 October in the Joondalup Times. The second phase was to enlist the services of a market research consultant to interview a statistically valid number of randomly sampled residents (with a confidence level of 95% and a sampling error of below +/- 5%). This was done to gain a wider community view and to validate any of the self reporting view gained from the first phase of the consultation process A total of 1300 responses were received consisting of 91 full surveys and 1,209 abbreviated responses from the Joondalup Times newspaper advertisement. The analysis of these results showed that 96% respondents agreed with the ‘Statement of Intent’. Approximately 3 out of 4 respondents preferred the universal recycling wheelie bin option. These results showed a strong correlation with the self reporting first phase. On the issue of willingness to pay, 46.5% of respondents were willing to pay extra for the resource recovery and the universal kerbside recycling service. Twelve percent were willing to go part the way and 33% were not willing to pay any more for an enhanced service. These results were obtained from question 7 of the random telephone survey was focussed purely costs. However, when the question on costs was coupled with the enhanced service to meet their needs and wishes, question 8, 78% were willing to accept the package of resource recovery and a universal kerbside recycling service, option 3. Also, in the public consultation phase, the full page newspaper advertisement on the recycling options where the environmental benefits were enunciated, costs and an outline of the service was detailed, the overwhelming result (77%) was that the respondents were willing to accept the package of resource recovery and a universal kerbside recycling service, option 3. Kinross, Currambine, Marmion and Mater Dei schools were visited during the consultation phase. Students were given a briefing on the basis of the visit and were then asked to complete the surveys. One hundred percent of school children surveyed felt that it was important to participate in recycling. Seventy one percent participated in recycling at home and fifty eight percent believed that more needs to be done in their local area for recycling.


The Sustainability Advisory Committee was also consulted on the matter and members completed the survey. The Sustainability Advisory Committee members understood the importance of RRF project and supported the introduction of an enhanced recycling service with the preference being for the introduction of a universal recycling wheelie bin service. COMMENT The Waste Management review is timely in view of the State’s drive to implement programs to facilitate working towards zero waste, the progress made by the Mindarie Regional Council on the RRF and the need to address issues regarding collection formats. The key driver for the recovery of waste is the RRF. The attached Waste Management Strategy has been developed from the imminent introduction of the RRF and the outcomes from the public consultation process. The stand out issue from the process was kerbside recycling and the overwhelming wish of residents to see the introduction of a universal recycling wheelie bin service for all. Resource recovery is a new concept and is not well understood. This issue has been acknowledged in the Strategy and is addressed in Objective 4 - identifying the need to introduce a community waste education and awareness programs. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 Waste Management Strategy 2005 Attachment 2 Executive Summary – Report on Community Survey results (Asset

Research). VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority MOVED Cmr Fox, SECONDED Cmr Anderson that Council: 1 ADOPTS the Waste Management Strategy 2005 forming Attachment 1 to Report

CJ277-12/05; 2 NOTES the strong public support for the introduction of a universal recycling

wheelie bin; 3 LISTS for consideration as part of the 2006/2007 budgetary deliberations,

implementation of a universal recycling wheelie bin service to all residents. AMENDMENT MOVED Cmr Anderson, SECONDED Cmr Smith that an additional Point 4 be added to the Motion as follows: “4 THANKS the Sustainability Advisory Committee and students of Currambine,

Marmion, Kinross and Mater Dei Schools for their participation in the consultation process.”

Cmr Anderson spoke to the Amendment and thanked CEO, Director Infrastructure Services and staff for the extent of consultation carried out in relation to this project. The Amendment was Put and CARRIED (5/0)


The Original Motion as amended, being: That Council: 1 ADOPTS the Waste Management Strategy 2005 forming Attachment 1 to Report

CJ277-12/05; 2 NOTES the strong public support for the introduction of a universal recycling

wheelie bin; 3 LISTS for consideration as part of the 2006/2007 budgetary deliberations,

implementation of a universal recycling wheelie bin service to all residents; 4 THANKS the Sustainability Advisory Committee and students of Currambine,

Marmion, Kinross and Mater Dei Schools for their participation in the consultation process.

was Put and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (5/0) Appendix 13 refers To access this attachment on electronic document, click here: Attach13brf061205.pdf Name/Position Cmr S Smith Item No/Subject CJ278-12/05 - Land Request for Proposed Community House in

Craigie, Lot 671 (178) Camberwarra Drive (Corner of Perilya Road) Nature of interest Interest that may affect impartiality Extent of Interest Cmr Smith advised funding for this community house was originally

destined for Currambine, and her daughter lives in Currambine. CJ278 - 12/05 LAND REQUEST FOR PROPOSED COMMUNITY

HOUSE IN CRAIGIE LOT 671 (178) CAMBERWARRA DRIVE (CORNER OF PERILYA ROAD) – [23562]

WARD: Pinnaroo RESPONSIBLE Mr Clayton Higham DIRECTOR: Planning and Community Development CJ051206_BRF.DOC:ITEM 16 PURPOSE To consider the possible disposal of Lot 671 (178) Camberwarra Drive Craigie (Corner Perilya Road) to the Department for Community Development (DCD). EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Department for Community Development (DCD), is seeking from the City a parcel of land identified as Lot 671 (178) Camberwarra Drive Craigie (Attachment 1 - Map of site) as a gift or reduced-value sale, to enable the development of a Community House for the benefit of the surrounding community. The Department made its approach to the City following an assessment of community needs for State Government services and as a result decided to



allocate capital works funding toward the construction of a Community House facility in Craigie. A number of options for Council’s consideration were explored and are outlined in detail in the report. Funding of a facility in Craigie by DCD has come as a result of a decision in December 2004, to re-allocate financial support from the potential Currambine project. The August report to Council (CJ186–08/05 refers) was presented with the following recommendation: That Council: 1 SUPPORTS this State Government initiative by agreeing to the sale of Lot 671 (178)

Camberwarra Drive Craigie (Corner Perilya Road) to the Department for Community Development for the construction of a Community House in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act (1995) and the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996;

2 AGREES to the sale of Lot 671 (178) Camberwarra Drive Craigie (Corner Perilya

Road) to the Department for Community Development at its market value at “highest and best use” as determined by an independent property valuer selected by the CEO on behalf of the City of Joondalup;

3 AGREES that any funds acquired as a result of the sale of Lot 671 (178)

Camberwarra Drive Craigie (Corner Perilya Road) to the Department for Community Development be transferred to the City’s Strategic Asset Management Reserve Account.

The resolution by the Council was as follows: 1 DEFERS consideration of the land request for proposed Community House in

Craigie, Lot 671 (178) Camberwarra Drive (corner of Perilya Road); 2 OBTAINS from the Department of Community Development detailed outcomes for

this proposed service, clearly stating how the community house will meet identified community needs;

3 RECEIVES from the Department of Community Development projected costs of

building the community house, giving reasons why the funds currently available will be inadequate if the arrangements for the sale of the land, Lot 671 (178) Camberwarra Drive, Craigie goes ahead; and

4 REQUESTS the Chief Executive Officer to provide relevant information on budgetary

implications should the sale of Lot 671 (178) Camberwarra Drive, Craigie not be realised.

As a result of the Council’s decision further information has been sought from DCD in order to respond to the Council’s request for specific information. The subsequent recommendation to the Council is that the Council: 1 SUPPORTS this State Government initiative by agreeing to the sale of Lot 671 (178)



2 AGREES to the sale of Lot 671 (178) Camberwarra Drive Craigie (Corner Perilya Road) to the Department for Community Development at its market value as determined by an independent property valuer selected by the City of Joondalup;

3 AGREES that any funds acquired as a result of the sale of Lot 671 (178)

Camberwarra Drive Craigie (Corner Perilya Road) to the Department for Community Development be transferred to the City’s Strategic Asset Management Reserve Account.

BACKGROUND

Suburb/Location: Lot 671 (178) Camberwarra Drive Craigie Applicant: State Government Department for Community Development Owner: The City of Joondalup Zoning: DPS: Civic and Cultural

MRS: Urban

On 23 March 2005, the City received correspondence from DCD regarding Lot 671 Camberwarra Drive in Craigie. The correspondence indicated that this site had been identified as the most suitable for the construction by DCD of a Community House. The request from DCD outlined its desire for the City to transfer the land to DCD by either gift, lease at a peppercorn rate, or sell at a reduced price. The State Government, via DCD, is seeking to develop a Community House in Craigie as a result of research undertaken which indicates that there is significant social need in the area for a Community House facility. The State Government has approved the sum of $390,000 for the purchase of land in Craigie for this purpose. In order for the development of a Community House in Craigie to proceed, the State Government has transferred an amount of $500,000 that was previously committed to a joint project with the City for a community facility in Currambine. The State Government’s contribution of $500,000 to the Currambine facility was on the basis that the City of Joondalup would match the funding on a dollar for dollar basis and with some components of the facility designed to meet the specific needs of DCD. Preliminary designs for the Currambine facility had included spaces in which counselling and children’s services could be conducted. The decision by DCD to progress the development of a Community House in Craigie was based on data reflecting client numbers, which are higher than in other suburbs of the City. Indicators such as the number of low-income families on Centrelink payments (22%), the number of rental properties (17%) and one-parent families (22%) indicate to DCD that Craigie is a suburb of significant need. The location of the Community House facility within Craigie would not only assist that suburb, but also provide services to residents of Beldon and Padbury, which are also suburbs known to have high social needs. Indication from DCD is that whilst $500,000 has been allocated to the project, this amount would only provide a modest Community House. If the City was to gift the land to DCD, it has been suggested that the additional funding of $390,000 would facilitate the provision of a significantly enhanced facility. This is identified as a preferred option by DCD. Prior to approaching the City, DCD engaged recognised Property Consultants to seek site options for a Community House. Several potential sites were identified, however the majority were deemed unavailable or unsuitable. The City of Joondalup property in Camberwarra Drive was assessed by DCD to be ideal for the project. The site is 2,000 square metres; it is zoned for Civic and Cultural use and is ideally located in Craigie.


The other sites identified by DCD in the research process and the reasons they considered them not to be suitable are as follows:

PROPERTY REASON Lots 1 and 3 Eddystone Avenue Not supplied by DCD Lot 674 Eddystone Avenue Not supplied by DCD Part of Lot 1025 Camberwarra Drive Steep grade, not viable Part of former Craigie High School Not central and DCD unable to determine

availability The subject land was transferred from North Whitfords Estate Pty Ltd to the City of Joondalup on 13 June 1979, free of encumbrances and at nil consideration, as part of the subdivision process. The City has not identified any immediate use for the property to date. Community Houses offer State Government programs that support the social well being of community members. A community-based management committee usually manages the activities of the facility and the programs offered are determined by the assessment of and response to community need. Examples of the kinds of support services that are offered though a Community House program are:

• Parenting courses • Financial Counselling • Emergency relief funds disbursement • Low-cost legal services • Support groups for families with disabilities • Support groups for families experiencing domestic violence • Counselling • Self esteem courses • Leisure and recreational opportunities

Other than Financial Counselling the types of services and programmes that are identified for this community house are outside of the sorts of services the City would seek to provide. The opportunity for the City to have the state government to provide a facility from which these services could be provided is an ideal situation, but as they are State Government services, they should be fully funded by the State. The matter was first considered by the Council at its meeting 30 August 2005 where it was resolved to: (i) defer consideration of the land request for the proposed Community House in Craigie, (ii) obtain from the DCD further outcomes for service, and (iii) seek a greater level of detail regarding the costs of building the community house. In response to this request by the Council the City corresponded with DCD on 6 September 2005, a subsequent meeting to assist the officers from DCD to provide the required information was convened on 23 September 2005. A response from DCD to the City’s request was received on 12 October 2005, and is attached as Attachment 2. DETAILS Lot 671 (178) Camberwarra Drive Craigie was valued by an independent valuer on behalf of the City in June 2004, at $360,000. The current zoning “Civic and Cultural” does not allow residential development on the site, without a successful rezoning amendment to the City’s District Planning Scheme Number 2. The land is adjacent to the Perilya Road commercial precinct and the eastern portion of the lot is affected by a car park adjoining the bowling


alley. An agreement is in place for reciprocal parking rights for this lot and the adjoining bowling alley lot. (see Issues Regarding Car Parking Arrangement) The current zoning of Civic and Cultural on the site would allow the Community House to be developed without advertising the intention for use. It would be advantageous, however, to implement an advertising period of between 21 and 28 days as a discretionary strategy to ensure that the local community are fully informed regarding the proposed Community House. There are a number of local community facilities located in Craigie and the surrounding suburbs. These buildings meet a variety of needs. Examples of “community model” buildings of this nature are Granny Spiers Community House in Heathridge and the Homestead Community Houses in Beldon and Kingsley. These facilities are built on the model of a large residential building, and designed specifically to create a homely atmosphere. Research demonstrates that this model is a successful way in which to offer social services to local communities. Being located in Camberwarra Drive, Craigie the Craigie Community House would be situated some distance from other “like” facilities. The facility is likely to assist and support the community for the following reasons: • The facility will provide services that are not readily available to the residents of Craigie • The programs on offer will be different to those offered by other similar community

facilities in closest proximity • Other Community Houses – Granny Spiers and Beldon Homestead are well utilised. • The demographics of Craigie are indicative of an area that requires the delivery of these

sorts of services • The program’s would complement rather than detract from those of other community

facilities. Within reasonable proximity of the proposed site are facilities such as the Craigie Leisure Centre, Ocean Ridge Leisure Centre, Rob Baddock community hall and clubroom facilities such as Guy Daniels and Warrandyte. These facilities are purpose-built and better suited to providing for sport and leisure activities. These buildings are well used at peak times and offer limited options for the types of services that are likely to be based at a community house facility. The additional information provided by DCD identified that their position of highlighting Craigie as an area of need was based upon key factors from, Australian Bureau of Statistics data, the Department for Community Development’s client services data and the Department of Health’s Early Developmental Index indicators. From the data that is available DCD have indicated that the Craigie area has a relatively high number of at risk and vulnerable children due to one or more of the following issues.

A relatively high percentage of low-income families working or on Centrelink pensions. Relatively high number of one parent families including teenage parents Social isolation due to poor extended family support Significant issues of social violence Alcohol and drug abuse, affecting financial management and family and individual

functioning Limited participation in local community networks and community organisations, often

because of feelings of disenfranchisement from the community High number of rental properties which lead to a feeling of not belonging to an area


The above information was supported with advice provided by Centrelink, which has not been presented as it is considered confidential and therefore inappropriate for public presentation. As a result of the issues identified as prevalent in the Craigie area, DCD are seeking the following desired outcomes from the development of a Community House.

Reduced number of at risk and vulnerable children Support for low income and pension supported families Strengthening family and community support Address family and domestic violence, elder abuse and homelessness Address drug and alcohol abuse Increase local participation ins local community networks and organisations

In the response from DCD they did not state how the community house will meet identified community needs. The cost of constructing a facility such as the one proposed for the Craigie community would be based on a rate provided by DCD of $2,000/m2. This figure includes consultancy fees and fit out. Some preliminary work done by DCD has indicated that given the 2000m2 size of the block, they would look at developing a facility of between 400 and 500m2, with a fenced play area of approximately 200m2. The parking requirement would need to be determined at the time any formal application to develop the land was lodged. If a building of these dimensions were to proceed based on the indicative cost of $2000m2, the total cost of the building to DCD would be between $800,000 and $1million. Issues and Options: In considering the formal approach made by DCD to the City, for the land for the development of a Community House, the City has a number of options. Option 1 Sell the land to the Department for Community Development at full market

value. Option 2 Sell the land to the Department for Community Development at a reduced

market value. Option 3 Offer the land as a gift to the Department for Community Development. Option 4 Lease the land to the Department for Community Development at peppercorn

rental. Option 5 Lease the land to the Department for Community Development at full market

rental Option 6 Lease the land to the Department for Community Development at reduced

market rental


The implications of each option are identified below: Option 1 Sell the land to Department for Community Development at full market price A market valuation of the land was undertaken as at 18 October 2005 by a licenced valuer and the highest and best use of the land was considered to be a residential use, however, this would be subject to the successful outcome of a rezoning amendment from ‘Civic and Cultural’ to ‘Residential’ under the City’s District Planning Scheme No. 2 and also taking into account the information within the legal agreement stamped 31 August 1989. Information from the valuation report states that should rezoning be successful and the land was subdivided into four lots, a developer would be prepared to pay a value of between $410,000 and $444,000. Should the City be prepared to use its own resources to carry out the subdivision into four lots, the City could expect to receive between $536,000 and $580,000, which would include the profit and risk factor normally taken by the developer and interest on the land value. Option 2 Sell the land at a reduced market price This option has some financial benefits for the City due to the market value of the property, at the same time allowing DCD to make a greater contribution to the construction of the Community House. However, prior to Option 3 being considered further, a plan of the proposed facility and estimated cost for its development together with the type of reduction to be considered should be determined. Option 3 Offer the land as a gift to Department for Community Development If gifted, the land would become an asset of the State Government and the City would forego the market value of the property in the Strategic Asset Management Reserve. While the services to be provided are clearly a State responsibility, there would be some local community benefit in that the $390,000 allocated for the purchase of land would enable DCD to construct an enhanced facility. The City would receive positive recognition as a result of its contribution to the local community. Option 4 Lease the land at peppercorn rental City could offer the land to the DCD on a peppercorn rental, for a period of 21 years and the DCD to undertake full maintenance of the property. This arrangement has to take into account nil rental return for that period and possibly inheriting a facility that requires significant maintenance. If the lease agreement is not renewed, the building would revert back to the ownership of the City. Option 5 Lease the land at full market rental The City could also offer the land to the DCD on a ground lease and based on the information in the recently acquired valuation, the City could expect a rate of return of between 6% and 8.5%. The valuer’s evidence indicated that this was typical for a community building on local government land with a long period lease in place. The rentals obtained in the evidence provided for market review every three years A rate of return at the high end of the valuation of $444,000 and would return approximately $35,000 per annum to the City. Over a 21 year term with 5% increases per year, the total return to the City would be in the vicinity of $1,250,000 and the value of the land based on a 10% per annum increase could be $3,000,000.


Option 6 Lease the land to the Department for Community Development at reduced market rental

Within the City’s Policy 4.2 – Setting Fees and Charges for lease fees it states: Lease fees ‘Lease Fees’ includes all property where a formal agreement to lease, contract to lease or license to occupy is in place or should be in place.

1 Council recognises that not-for-profit groups are generally

(a) providing a benefit to the community; and

(b) not in a position to pay commercial lease rates.

2 The standard lease fee is therefore set as follows:-

(a) not-for-profit organisations - equivalent of 1% of current capital replacement cost per annum

(b) lease fees will be determined in proportion to any contribution mad by a user group to the capital cost;

(c) all others - market value.

(d) inclusion of GST where applicable.

3 Lease fees for vacant land provided to not-for-profit organisations will be that determined by the Valuer-General. Such leases or rental agreements will provide mechanisms for revaluation every three years.

4 Capital cost will be determined by the Director Corporate Services & Resource

Management.

5 Any existing anomalies to this policy will be rectified as the opportunity arises.

As DCD is a government organisation, a peppercorn rental under the City’s Policy 4.2 is not applicable. With regard to point 3, the Valuer General was not used for the recent valuation, as there are extensive delays when using this department. Generally speaking, the Valuer General is considered to be conservative when undertaking valuations when compared to valuations carried out by a commercial valuer. By offering the area of land to DCD at a market ground rent or a reduced rental (Options 4,5 and 6) the City would enable the construction of the Community House to proceed whilst it retains ownership of the land. At the end of the lease term, the building is retained by the City and from an asset perspective provided the facility has been fully maintained, this is an advantage, however, the City has also to consider the consequences of inheriting the services from within the facility Selling the land to DCD at market or reduced value (Options 2 and 3) would both generate funds, that could be set aside in the Strategic Asset Management Reserve Account, to be used for new community facilities or for capital improvements on existing community facilities.


Gifting the land to DCD (Option 1) would effectively hand the State Government the land with no financial return to the City of Joondalup. It is considered that the State Government is presently in a strong financial position and could fund the purchase of the land at market value and the building of a suitable facility from which it would provide State Government services. Issues Regarding Car Parking Agreement It should be noted that there is a legal agreement stamped 31 August 1989 between the City and the owners of AMF Craigie Bowl at Lot 672 (9) Perilya Road, Craigie which is on the eastern boundary of the City’s Lot 671. The legal agreement allows the owners of the bowling centre to encroach onto the City’s land for use as a car park and to maintain the encroached area. The agreement future states that in the event that the City develops a community facility on Lot 671, the users of the community facility may use this car parking area. A six metre wide landscaping strip was also to be developed along the boundary of the City and bowling centre land as a temporary measure pending the development of a community facility on the City’s land, but this was never carried out. The agreement states that both parties and any successors in title are bound by the agreement for as long as Lot 672 is used as a bowling centre or similar use. Link to Strategic Plan: Objective 3.1 To develop and maintain City of Joondalup’s assets and built environment. Disposal of an Asset by the City of Joondalup The land at Lot 671 (178) Camberwarra Drive (Corner of Perilya Road) is unencumbered. The disposal of land by the City would not require a Business Plan if the disposition is less than $1,000,000. Legislation – Statutory Provisions: A disposition of land is defined under section 3.58 of the Local Government Act 1995 to include selling, leasing or otherwise disposing of property whether it be the whole or part of the property. Section 3.58 needs to be adhered to unless the disposition is an ‘exempt disposition’ as defined under regulation 30 of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996. As the City proposes to dispose of the property to State Government, Regulation 30(2)(c)(ii) qualifies the disposition as an exempt disposition. Accordingly, if the City disposes of the land, by way of sale or a lease agreement to DCD, the statutory requirement outlined above will have been met. The City has no statutory responsibility to provide this sort of community facility or the types of services as proposed to occur in the facility. The responsibilities vested in the City relate to the following of proper process regarding disposal of freehold land, land ownership, planning and land use. Risk Management considerations: Not Applicable.


Financial/Budget Implications: Lot 671 Camberwarra Drive Craigie (Corner Perilya Road) was valued in June 2004 at $360,000. The most recent valuation, carried out in October 2005, estimated that the land value has increased to between $410,000 and $444,000. The disposal of this property at market value would generate funds, which could be placed in the Strategic Asset Management Reserve Account. The leasing of the land to DCD at 8.5% (highest lease return as determined by the valuer) on the higher end valuation of $444,000 for the un-subdivided land, would return to the City approximately $35,000 per annum. With 5% increases per year, the total 21 year return to the City would be in the vicinity of $1,250,000 and the value of the land, based on a 10% per annum increase, could be $3,000,000. Policy Implications: The City does not have a policy on the disposal of its freehold land, however, Policy 7.3 – Community Facilities – Built states as its objective for the City’s procurement of new buildings or additions that such buildings or additions shall be subject to review to ensure that they meet the objectives of:

• Strategic Plan; • Corporate responsibilities, and • Identified needs.

From preliminary investigations it is known that the Strategic Asset Management Reserve has a significant shortfall and to dispose of this property for any value less than market would dilute the City’s net asset position. Regional Significance: The construction of a community facility in the suburb of Craigie is fundamentally a local issue. The services provided would be mainly intended for delivery to residents of the City of Joondalup who live near to the facility. Sustainability Implications: The proposal to provide a Community House in the suburb of Craigie addresses the diverse needs of the local community and will have a positive effect on the development of a healthy, equitable, active and involved community. The Community House will address the objectives outlined earlier in the report. Disposal for less than market value would negatively impact on the City's financial sustainability. Consultation: The City has been made aware of the desire of a number of local members of the community for this facility to proceed.


COMMENT Through the sale of the land sought by DCD the City has an opportunity to direct the proceeds into the Strategic Asset Management Reserve for funding its current and future asset responsibilities. Whilst no specific project is identifiable at this time it is likely that there will be a future opportunity to benefit from the availability of the funds from this sale for other community buildings. One potential project that could benefit from the generation of funds in this manner is the Currambine Community Centre. However this project will undergo a feasibility study during the 2005/2006 budget year. The Currambine project was a City project with a funding contribution from DCD. The facility was to incorporate DCD requirements for joint use of the facility. Following DCD’s decision to remove funding it left the City short of funds for the project at that location. The Community House project is entirely a DCD project for their programs. The City has no identified immediate need for a community facility at this location for programs normally run by the City. DCD are seeking the City’s contribution (through the land value) to fund the Community House facility for their programs. If the City were to purchase land from the State Government the price would be based on the market value of the land at its “highest and best” use which is based on the same principle used in the City’s recommendation. The lease options are not recommended due to the fact that at the end of the lease period the property would revert to the City who would be responsible for refurbishing and maintaining the building. The City is also concerned in relation to the continuation of those services and does not wish to get caught up in a cost shifting exercise. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 Map of the site Attachment 2 Additional information from Department for Community Development Attachment 3 Letter from Kevin Wringe, District Manager Joondalup office Department

for Community Development - 23 March 2005 (attached for information only)

VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION: That Council: 1 SUPPORTS this State Government initiative by agreeing to the sale of Lot 671 (178)


2 AGREES to the sale of Lot 671 (178) Camberwarra Drive Craigie (Corner Perilya

Road) to the Department for Community Development at its market value at “highest and best use” as determined by an independent property valuer selected by the CEO on behalf of the City of Joondalup;


3 AGREES that any funds acquired as a result of the sale of Lot 671 (178) Camberwarra Drive Craigie (Corner Perilya Road) to the Department for Community Development be transferred to the City’s Strategic Asset Management Reserve Account.

MOVED Cmr Anderson, SECONDED Cmr Fox that consideration of the land request for proposed community house in Craigie Lot 671 (178) Camberwarra Drive (corner of Perilya Road) be REFERRED back to the administration for a further examination of the leasing options that were put to Council at market rental, with a further report being presented to Council in February 2006. The Motion was Put and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (5/0) Appendix 14 refers To access this attachment on electronic document, click here: Attach14brf061205.pdf CJ279 - 12/05 PROPOSED AMENDMENT NO 34 TO DISTRICT

PLANNING SCHEME NO 2 AND MODIFICATION TO THE KINROSS NEIGHBOURHOOD CENTRE STRUCTURE PLAN TO INCREASE THE RETAIL FLOOR SPACE AT THE KINROSS NEIGHBOURHOOD CENTRE, SELKIRK DRIVE, KINROSS – [89577]

WARD: North Coastal RESPONSIBLE Mr Clayton Higham DIRECTOR: Planning and Community Development CJ051206_BRF.DOC:ITEM 17 PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s consent to initiate Amendment No 34 to District Planning Scheme No 2 (DPS2) for the purposes of public advertising and to make modifications to the Kinross Neighbourhood Centre Structure Plan in accordance with the amendment. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Council has received an application to increase the floor space capacity at the Kinross Neighbourhood Centre site, being portion of Lot 2 (400) Burns Beach Road (East). The proposal would require an amendment to the DPS2, in addition to an amendment to the Structure Plan for the land. Until recently, the area was intended to be served by three retail centre locations, those being: • Edinburgh Avenue - 1000 m2 retail floor space limit • Selkirk Drive - 3000m² retail floor space limit. • Kinross Drive - 500m² retail floor space limit.



In November 2005, Council approved rezoning of the minor retail site (Kinross Drive) for residential purposes. Notwithstanding, retail modelling for Kinross suggests that additional retail floor space would be required. The proposal is to reallocate the 500m² (spare) retail space into the Kinross Neighbourhood Centre land, and to allow a further 500m² retail floor space on that site. The nett effect would be that two neighbourhood commercial sites would be provided in Kinross, with a total retail capacity of 5000m². Analysis of the application leads to the conclusion that the consolidation of retail floor space will assist with the viability of the centre, and may also encourage a greater range of services than might otherwise occur. It is recommended that Council: 1 Pursuant to Section 7 of the Town Planning and Development Act 1928, ADOPTS

Amendment No. 34 to the City of Joondalup District Planning Scheme No. 2 to modify Schedule 3 to increase the Net Lettable Area of Portion Lot 2 (400) Burns Beach Road, Kinross from 3000m2 to 4000m2, for the purpose of advertising for a period of 42 days;

2 Prior to the advertising period commencing, FORWARDS the proposed amendment

to the Environmental Protection Authority in order to decide if an environmental review of the proposal is required;

3 Pursuant to clause 9.7 of the City of Joondalup District Planning Scheme No 2

RESOLVES to adopt the modifications to the Kinross Neighbourhood Centre Structure Plan from 3000m2 to 4000m2 and advertise the modifications concurrently with the district planning scheme amendment.

BACKGROUND

Suburb/Location: Kinross Applicant: Shrapnell Urban Planning Owner: Adriatic United Pty Ltd Zoning: DPS: Centre MRS: Urban Site Area: 1.3876 ha Structure Plan: Kinross Neighbourhood Centre

There are three commercial centres currently planned in the Kinross area. Each centre has a retail net lettable area (NLA) floor space limit specified in Schedule 3 of DPS2 (Attachment 1) as follows:

• Corner of Kinross Drive and Edinburgh Avenue at Lot 1255 (59) Kinross Drive, Kinross, – 1000m2.

• Kinross Neighbourhood Centre at 3 Selkirk Drive, Kinross, (describes as Portion Lot 2

(400) Burns Beach Road (East) in DPS2) – 3000m2 (the subject site). • Lot 200 (157) Kinross Drive, Kinross, (described as Portion Lot 2 (400) Burns Beach

Rd (North) in DPS2) - 500m2. The centre on the corner of Kinross Drive and Edinburgh Avenue is currently the only existing centre and consists of a small number of shops and services, including a deli, fish and chip shop, chemist, real estate agent, and vet.


Council at its meeting of 11 October 2005 granted planning approval for the Kinross Neighbourhood Shopping Centre, which includes a supermarket, restaurant/shop (café), liquor store, two takeaway food outlets, eleven non-retail tenancies and two automatic teller machines (CJ217-10/05 refers). The total floor space proposed is 4,116m2, however, the retail component is restricted to 3,000 m2. On 1 November 2005 Council adopted Amendment No 30 to DPS2 which seeks to rezone Lot 200 (157) Kinross Drive (North) from Commercial (R20) to Residential R30 (CJ237-11/05 refers). It was argued that the subject site did not appear to be viable for Commercial purposes given its location and size. This application is currently pending a decision from the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure. DETAILS Issues and options considered: The applicant is proposing to increase the retail floor space of the Kinross Neighbourhood Centre from 3000m2 to 4000m2. The proposal entails the following modification to statutory documents. • DPS2 Amendment

If adopted, DPS2 would be amended by modifying ‘Schedule 3 – Commercial and Centre Zones: Retail Net Lettable Area’ to increase the retail floor space of the Kinross Neighbourhood Centre from 3000m2 to 4000m2.

• Structure Plan Amendment

If adopted, the Kinross Neighbourhood Structure Plan would be amended by modifying section 4.0 to read ‘4000m2’ in lieu of ‘3000m2’.

Relevant considerations in regard to this request are: • Council Policy • WAPC Policy • The amount of retail floor space available within the Kinross area. • The effect of the increase in retail floor space on the Kinross Neighbourhood Centre Applicant’s Justification In order to justify the request, the applicant has submitted a Retail Floor space Assessment prepared by a planning consultant specialising in retail assessments. The report recommends: • The 500m2 currently allocated to the local centre at Lot 200 (157) Kinross Drive, Kinross,

should be reallocated to the planned Kinross Neighbourhood Centre, and • An additional 500m2 should be allocated to the Kinross Neighbourhood Centre to

compensate for the current and future under provision of neighbourhood level retail floor space in the northern section of Kinross.


The applicant’s report submitted raises the following points with regard to existing and proposed retail areas in the near vicinity, which have been summarised below: Currambine Currambine District has a NLA limit of 10,000m2. There are no neighbourhood centres although a ‘Centre’ zone does cover a large area in the vicinity of Connolly Drive and Ascot Way. 3000m2 has been allocated to this area, however it is unlikely that it will be developed for retail purposes. Burns Beach The Burns Beach Structure Plan provides for a small ‘Local Shop’ precinct. A population estimate indicates approximately 4640 people. The allocated area has the potential to accommodate between 1000m2 and 1500m2 NLA at most and is therefore under provided with retail floor space. Iluka A neighbourhood centre below 5000m2 is allocated to Iluka, however due to the peripheral location of this suburb and its close proximity to the Currambine District Centre, it is likely that any future centre would be considerably less than 5000m2. Joondalup The neighbourhood is currently serviced by Candlewood Village which has a NLA limit of 2000m2. The Joondalup Strategic Regional Centre does not provide good access for daily and even weekly food and groceries, as it is less convenient due to increased traffic as the centre expands. The full retail assessment report has been placed in the Commissioner’s reading room, and will be available for public inspection in the event that Council adopts the proposal for advertising. Options In considering the proposed amendment to DPS2 and the Kinross Neighbourhood Structure Plan, Council can: • Not adopt the proposed amendments, • Adopt the amendments for the purposes of public advertising, • Modify the proposed amendments, and adopt the modified amendments for the

purposes of public advertising. Link to Strategic Plan: Key Focus Area: City Development Outcome: To continue to meet changing Demographic needs Objective: Integrate plans to support community and business development. Outcome: The City of Joondalup is recognised for investment and business opportunities Objective: To provide and maintain sustainable economic development


Legislation – Statutory Provisions: Section 7 of the Town Planning and Development Act 1928 (TP&D Act 1928) together with Section 25 of the Town Planning Regulations 1967 enable Local Authorities to Amend a Town Planning Scheme and sets out the process to be followed (Attachment 2 refers). Should the Council support the initiation of the proposed amendment for the purposes of public advertising, the proposed amendment is required to be referred to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) to decide whether or not a formal environmental review is required should the EPA decide that an environmental review is not required, upon the City’s receipt of written confirmation of this form the EPA, the City advertises the proposed amendment for 42 days. Upon closure of the advertising period, the Council considers all submissions received during the advertising period and would resolve to either grant final approval to the amendment, with or without modifications or refuse the amendment. The decision is then forwarded to the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) who makes a recommendation to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure. The Minister can either grant final approval to the amendment, with or without further modifications, or refuse the amendment. Under clause 9.7 of the Scheme, Council may amend an Agreed Structure Plan subject to approval of the WAPC. In this instance, should Council determine that the proposed amendments are satisfactory the proposal will be advertised for public comment in accordance with clause 9.5 of the Scheme, in conjunction with the DPS2 amendment. Risk Management considerations: Not Applicable Financial/Budget Implications: Not Applicable Policy Implications: The City’s Centres Strategy (Policy 3-3) recommends that the expansion of a neighbourhood centre be considered in the context of an approved structure plan based on main street principles, particularly if the expansion is over 3,000m2. In this regard, the Kinross Neighbourhood Structure Plan applies to the land, and the design of the recently approved Kinross Shopping Centre encompasses ‘main street’ principles as required by the structure plan. The proposed increase in retail floor space therefore accords with Policy 3-3. The WAPC Policy 4.2 - ‘Metropolitan Centres Policy Statement for the Perth Metropolitan Region’ states that Neighbourhood Centres’ retail floor space should generally be confined to below 4,500m2, unless consistent with a WAPC endorsed local strategy. In this instance, the proposal is to increase the Kinross Neighbourhood Centre retail floor space to 4,000m2, which complies with the WAPC Policy. Regional Significance: The proposal has significance to the local neighbourhood and to the provision of retail floor space within the neighbourhood. The proposal is therefore unlikely to have any regional significance.


Sustainability Implications: The increase in retail floor space is considered desirable, as it would increase the range of facilities that could be utilised by the local community. These facilities can add to the social wellbeing of the community and provide additional employment opportunities. There are economic benefits by attracting small businesses to the area. Consultation: The Town Planning Regulations 1967 require that, should Council adopt the amendment, it be advertised for a period of 42 days. All landowners would be notified in writing, a notice placed in the local newspaper and the Statewide newspaper and a sign placed on the site. The proposed amendment would also be displayed at the City administration centre and on the City’s website. COMMENT It is considered that the retail assessment report submitted with the application provides significant justification for the increase in retail floor space for the Kinross Centre. It is apparent that the Kinross area and the soon to be developed Burns Beach subdivision do not contain significant retail floor space allocations. Part of the justification for the increase in retail floor space comes from the reallocation of 500m2 of retail floor space proposed to be removed from the site located at Lot 200 (157) Kinross Drive. It is likely that a determination by the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure will occur prior to the end of the year. The Minister’s decision will be reported and considered following the advertising of this amendment proposal, should Council adopt the proposal for advertising. It is noted that, if approved, the increase in retail floor space at the Kinross Neighbourhood Shopping Centre would not necessarily translate into the development of a larger shopping centre. It may mean that the existing approved floor space would be utilised for retail purposes, as opposed to, say, office uses. It is recommended that Council adopt the proposed amendments to DPS2 and the Kinross Neighbourhood Structure Plan for the purpose of public advertising. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 Location plan – three retail centres Attachment 2 Scheme Amendment Process VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority MOVED Cmr Clough, SECONDED Cmr Smith that Council: 1 Pursuant to Section 7 of the Town Planning and Development Act 1928,

ADOPTS Amendment No. 34 to the City of Joondalup District Planning Scheme No. 2 to modify Schedule 3 of the Scheme text to increase the Net Lettable Area of Portion Lot 2 (400) Burns Beach Road, Kinross from 3000m2 to 4000m2, for the purpose of advertising for a period of 42 days;


2 Prior to the advertising period commencing, FORWARDS the proposed amendment to the Environmental Protection Authority in order to decide if an environmental review of the proposal is required;

3 Pursuant to clause 9.7 of the City of Joondalup District Planning Scheme No 2

RESOLVES to adopt the modifications to the Kinross Neighbourhood Centre Structure Plan from 3000m2 to 4000m2 and advertise the modifications concurrently with the district planning scheme amendment.

Cmr Anderson queried the processes in relation to advertising and requested that steps be put in place to ensure that advertising did not commence between now and the Christmas period. Chief Executive Officer advised it was intended that no advertising where consultation was involved would take place during the Christmas period. The Motion was Put and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (5/0) Appendix 15 refers To access this attachment on electronic document, click here: Attach15brf061205.pdf CJ280 - 12/05 REVIEW OF CASH-IN-LIEU OF CAR PARKING

POLICY 7-10 – [72020] WARD: All RESPONSIBLE Mr Clayton Higham DIRECTOR: Planning and Community Development CJ051206_BRF.DOC:ITEM 18 PURPOSE To review the current Cash-In-Lieu of Car Parking Policy to align the policy with the City’s District Planning Scheme No 2 (DPS2) and to review current car parking bay valuations. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Cash-In-Lieu of Car Parking Policy provides parameters for the Council to consider the payment of cash-in-lieu of the provision of on-site car parking bays for a proposed development. The funds received by the City through cash-in-lieu payments are intended to contribute to the construction and management of future car parking demand within the near vicinity of the proposed development. It is considered that the policy has been operating adequately, however changes are proposed to update references within the policy to align it with the City’s DPS2 and to review the value of land which is included within the calculation of cash-in-lieu of parking.



It is recommended that Council: 1 in accordance with Clause 8.11.3 of District Planning Scheme No 2 ADOPTS the

revised Cash-In-Lieu Policy 7-10 as per Attachment 1 to Report CJ280-12/05 for the purpose of public advertising for a period of twenty-eight (28) days for public comment;

2 following the advertising period as outlined in (1) above SUBMITS a report to Council

to give consideration to adopting Policy 7-10 Review of Cash-In-Lieu of Car Parking and amending the Schedule of Fees and Charges to include an amount of cash in lieu payments under Clause 4.11 of DPS2 under the following categories:

Joondalup City Centre - $25,440 Standard District Centres (Service Industrial/Commercial Land) - $10,750 Beachfront Commercial - $40,750

3 REQUIRES that the cash-in-lieu values be reviewed on an annual basis. BACKGROUND Clause 4.11 of DPS2 allows Council to consider accepting a payment in lieu of the on-site provision of car parking. Cash-in-lieu of car parking provides a potential alternative to the development of on-site car parking should there be a shortfall in the provision of car parking bays as outlined under Table 2 of DPS2. The DPS2 provision does not replace the developer’s responsibility to provide on-site parking, but rather is a mechanism to enable otherwise desirable developments, for which the full amount of parking cannot be provided on site, to proceed. However, in accordance with Clause 4.11, there must be an adequate provision or a reasonable expectation in the immediate future, that there will be adequate provision for public car parking in the proximity of the proposed development. The Cash-In-Lieu of Car Parking policy provides guidance as to when such a payment will be accepted and the value of the payment. The contribution rate of cash-in-lieu is based on the appropriate land valuation that is applicable to the zoning and the estimated cost of construction of a car bay. Both the estimated cost of constructing a car bay and land valuation is calculated at a per square metre rate. The current policy was adopted by the Council in June 1999 (Report CJ213-06/99 refers) and it is now appropriate that it be reviewed due to parts of the current policy referring to Council’s Town Planning Scheme No 1 and an increase of land values within the locality. The Cash-In-Lieu of Car Parking policy applies to all areas within the City of Joondalup with the exception of the City Centre. Given the specific circumstances and needs relating to car parking within the City Centre, a separate Car Parking Strategy applies to the City Centre. This Strategy is currently being reviewed. DETAILS Issues and options considered: Land Valuation Review The City commissioned an independent licensed land valuer to undertake a study of current commercial and industrial land values within the City of Joondalup. At the completion of the reviewed land valuations within the locality, a report was provided to the City outlining the current land values. The figures forwarded were calculated at a rate per square metre and


broken down into three land use categories. These land use categories and per square metre land values are:

Joondalup City Centre - $600m² Standard District Centres (Service Industrial/Commercial Land) - $300m² Beachfront Commercial - $1,300m²

The current policy states that a car bay (at-grade) is assumed to be 30m² in area. A bay within a multi level car park (applicable to the City Centre) is 32m2. Construction costs are also added to the cash-in-lieu figure, which are currently estimated to be $1,750 for an at-grade bay, and $19,040 for a bay within a multi level car park (applicable to the City Centre). Given these parameters, the current value per car bay have been assessed to be:


In regard to the Joondalup City Centre figure, the land value component has been based on the development of a 3 storey multi-deck car park, whereby the land value would be amortised over the total development. The land value has therefore been reduced one-third (ie $200 m2). Current Policy The Cash-In-Lieu of Car Parking Policy supplements DPS2 by providing relevant details with regards to the acceptance and valuation of proposed Cash-In-Lieu car parking arrangements. This includes:

• Parking Bay Valuations • Policy Exceptions • Details regarding delegated authority in approving development applications that

propose cash-in-lieu payments • Car parking requirements for Royce Court, located on the western side of Joondalup

Drive, which is zoned ‘Service Industrial’ under the DPS2. Whilst the policy is performing satisfactorily, some changes are proposed to provide reviewed land valuations for calculating proposed cash-in-lieu car parking and to align the current policy to the appropriate clauses of DPS2. The cash in lieu figures are contained within the current policy. It is considered more appropriate that such figures are set within the Schedule of Fees and Charges and referenced from the policy. Proposed Amendments The amendments proposed to the current policy are as follows (Attachment 1 refers):

• Replacing reference to Part 9 of Council’s Town Planning Scheme to read:

Part 4.8 of Council’s District Planning Scheme No.2


• Replacing references to Town Planning Scheme to read:

District Planning Scheme No.2

• Omit reference to land values for Residential and General Industrial land.

• Provide revised land valuations for a parking bay, which reads:

Service Industrial/Commercial Land - $10,750 Beachfront Commercial - $40,750

• Deletion of the section headed Delegation

• Additional and expanded criteria to Royce Court Policy Statement to read:

Should the applicant provide on-site car parking for the equivalent portion of the proposed development that is above a plot ratio of 0.70, a cash-in-lieu payment is not required.

Separate to the policy amendments, Council is also requested to amend the current cash-in-lieu figure for the Joondalup City Centre from $8,100 per bay, to $25,440 per bay. Link to Strategic Plan: The recommendation in this report is supported by the following objective and strategy in the City’s Strategic Plan 2003 – 2008:

Objective 3.1 To develop and maintain the assets and built environment of the City of Joondalup.

Strategy 3.1.2 Facilitate the safe design, construction and approval of all

buildings and facilities within the City of Joondalup. Legislation – Statutory Provisions: Clause 8.11 of DPS2 outlines the provisions with respect to the preparation of local planning policies and amendments or additions to policies. Financial/Budget Implications: The funds received by the City from cash-in-lieu parking arrangement contributes towards the provision and management of future car parking facilities within the locality. Risk Management considerations: As Council has the ability to accept cash in lieu of the provision of car parking, the dollar amount accepted must reflect the cost to the City of providing that car parking. There is a risk that the City would not be able to fund the provision of car parking should the amount accepted not reflect the costs involved. Policy Implications: To improve the performance of the Cash-In-Lieu of Car Parking Policy by:

• Providing reviewed costs for parking bay valuations. • To align the current Cash-In-Lieu Policy with DPS2.


Regional Significance: Not Applicable Sustainability Implications: Cash in lieu of car parking enables public car parking to be provided in strategic locations, and assists in reducing the amount of private land that is given over to car parking, and which could be used for other development. Regulating the amount of car parking in the City Centre will also assist in encouraging other forms of transport to access the CBD. Consultation: Once a draft policy is prepared or proposed to be modified, it is required to be advertised in accordance with clause 8.11.3 of DPS2 by way of a notice published once a week for two consecutive weeks in the local newspaper, giving notice where the draft policy may be inspected. The draft policy is also advertised on the Council’s website. The specified period for advertising should not be less than twenty-one (21) days. COMMENT The policy has been operating for approximately six (6) years and is considered to function adequately, however it is intended to review the policy to provide current land valuations for calculating proposed cash-in-lieu car parking arrangements. Deletion of ‘Residential’ Category The current policy does not apply to residential development. The Residential Design Codes allows discretion to be considered in regard to the provision of on-site car parking for residential development. Therefore, it is rare that cash-in-lieu provisions are used for residential development outside of the City Centre. It is proposed to delete the reference in the current policy to Residential development. However, should the City receive an application for a residential development where the provision of cash-in-lieu car parking may be appropriate, the applicant will be required to provide an independent valuation to enable calculation of the appropriate cash-in-lieu payment. Deletion of ‘General Industrial’ category Reference in the current policy to cash-in-lieu land valuations for General Industrial development is no longer applicable, as the zoning is not listed under the DPS2. Therefore it is proposed that this reference be deleted. Delegation Currently, the policy refers to how the policy will be implemented in terms of delegation from Council to staff. Town Planning delegations are subject to a separate document and Council resolution, and it is inappropriate that this policy seeks to confer delegations. Therefore it is proposed that this reference be deleted.


DPS2 Alignment It is also intended to align the current policy with the DPS2 as the current policy refers to clauses and parts from Town Planning Scheme No 1. This will ensure that the appropriate statutory provisions of DPS2 are relevant when considering proposed cash-in lieu parking arrangements associated with submitted development applications. Royce Court Currently, the Policy outlines that the public parking provided in Royce Court is considered adequate for development up to 0.70 plot ratio on the surrounding lots. Any development on lots within this policy area above a plot ratio of 0.70 will require a cash-in-lieu of car parking contribution to be made to Council. However, a number of developments have been developed above a plot ratio of 0.7 and have provided on-site car parking in lieu of a cash payment. This is considered acceptable, and it is proposed to modify the Policy to reflect that a cash in lieu payment is not required in the event that sufficient on-site car parking is provided. Joondalup City Centre The Joondalup City Centre is not subject to the cash-in-lieu policy as this area is subject to the Joondalup City Centre Parking Strategy, which aims to meet the specific needs of the City Centre environment. This strategy is to be the subject of a separate review, and, as such, a separate policy regard City Centre cash-in-lieu is not considered necessary. The strategy indicates that the value of cash-in-lieu for the City Centre would be initially set lower in the early stages and increased in the later stages of the development of the City. The strategy also indicates that the cash-in-lieu amount should, at the very least, cover the land valuation and construction cost of the car bays. In the medium to longer term, it is expected that collected cash-in-lieu monies will fund the development of multi-storey public car parking. Previously, Council at its meeting held on 9 October 2001 (Report CJ354-10/01 refers) resolved that the cash-in-lieu payment for a bay within the Joondalup City Centre would be $8,100. The recent land valuation report sets out that the current value of city centre land is approximately $600 per square metre ($200m2 if amortised over a 3 level car park), plus construction costs ($19,040 for a multi deck bay). Therefore, the current value of a car bay is $25,440. This figure is substantially higher than the currently adopted figure, however, this figure has not been reviewed for six years. Given the increasing maturity of the city centre, combined with growing demand for parking, it is considered appropriate and necessary that the cash-in-lieu figure reflect current land values. Therefore it is recommended that Council adjust the Joondalup City Centre cash-in-lieu figure (via resolution) to $25,440. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 Cash-In-Lieu of Car Parking Policy 7-10 (Revised) VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority


MOVED Cmr Clough, SECONDED Cmr Anderson that Council: 1 in accordance with Clause 8.11.3 of District Planning Scheme No 2 ADOPTS the

revised Cash-In-Lieu Policy 7-10 as per Attachment 1 to Report CJ280-12/05 for the purpose of public advertising for a period of twenty-eight (28) days for public comment;

2 following the advertising period as outlined in (1) above SUBMITS a report to

Council to give consideration to adopting Policy 7-10 Review of Cash-In-Lieu of Car Parking and amending the Schedule of Fees and Charges to include an amount of cash in lieu payments under Clause 4.11 of DPS2 under the following categories:


3 REQUIRES that the cash-in-lieu values be reviewed on an annual basis. The Motion was Put and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (5/0) Appendix 16 refers To access this attachment on electronic document, click here: Attach16agn131205.pdf CJ281 - 12/05 SINGLE HOUSE: RETROSPECTIVE APPROVAL

FOR UNAUTHORISED COMMUNICATIONS ANTENNAE - SATELLITE DISH AND MAST – LOT 595 (16) MAINSAIL DRIVE, OCEAN REEF – [00922]

WARD: Marina RESPONSIBLE Mr Clayton Higham DIRECTOR: Planning and Community Development CJ051206_BRF.DOC:ITEM 19 PURPOSE To request the Council’s determination of an application for retrospective planning approval for an unauthorised communications antennae - satellite dish and mast at Lot 595 (16) Mainsail Drive, Ocean Reef. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The site is located at 16 Mainsail Drive in Ocean Reef and zoned Residential with a density of R20. The site is occupied by a two-storey dwelling and is surrounded by single residential properties. The application is for retrospective approval for an existing satellite dish and mast. The size of the existing satellite dish requires it to be defined as a “communication antenna” under the District Planning Scheme No 2 (DPS2) and as such, is a “D” use in the Residential



Zone. A “D” use is a use that is not permitted, but Council may grant its approval after following the procedures set out in subclause 6.6.2 of the DPS2. The applicant previously sought Council’s planning approval for a communication antenna in 2000. The application was refused. The applicant subsequently erected a communications antenna on the building. The DPS2 allows the erection of a mast and antenna (satellite dish) without planning approval, provided it meets certain criteria. However, the structure exceeds the criteria set out in subclause 6.1.3(b) of DPS2 and as such, the applicant was required to obtain planning approval before it was erected. The applicant is now requesting retrospective approval for the communications antenna in its current location. The communications antenna is clearly visible from the street and is prominent from the back of the adjacent properties to the rear. The dish is 3 metres in diameter, is motorised and is attached to a mast located on the roof of the ground floor of the dwelling. The satellite dish sits above the profile of the dwelling in its resting position and increases in height during use. The application for retrospective planning approval was advertised for comment and submissions were received in relation to the application. The retrospective application for a communications antenna is placed before the Council as: • Planning approval was required for the structure prior to its erection, as a mast or

antenna, with a vertical or horizontal dimension exceeding two metres, required approval under Clause 6.1.3 (b) of the DPS2;

• Planning approval was previously refused for its erection; and • Discretion is required to be exercised under the Codes Clause 3.10.2 – External

Fixtures as the satellite dish is visible from the primary street and is in a visually obtrusive location; and

• Should Council refuse the application, a resolution to commence legal action to have the structure removed is required.

Having regard to the provisions of the DPS2, the Codes and the submissions received, it is recommended that the application for retrospective planning approval be refused and the applicant be required to remove the communications antenna. BACKGROUND

Suburb/Location: Ocean Reef Applicant: Maurice Robert Pearce Owner: Patricia Gomez and Maurice Robert Pearce Zoning: DPS: Residential R20 MRS: Urban Site Area: 903m2 Structure Plan: Not Applicable

The property is located in an established residential neighbourhood, with single houses across the road and to both sides and the rear (See attachment 1). The DPS2 zoning for the subject site and surrounding lots is Residential with a density of R20.


The applicant made a similar application for a communications antenna in July 2000. A summary of that application process follows: 27/07/2000 Application received by Council for satellite dish, patio and boundary

wall. 31/07/2000 Advertising commenced. 04/08/2000 Objection received from near neighbour. 14/08/2000 Applicant advised of objection and advised did not want to relocate dish

because: - Dish unable to receive messages; and - Does not want to look at dish in back yard.

23/08/2000 Council proposed alternate location for communications antenna. Not considered by the applicant to be acceptable.

23/08/2000 Objecting owners contact the Council with a submission regarding the satellite dish and its effect on their amenity. Included in the submission is a photograph of the view into the subject property from their property.

24/08/2000 Amended plans received. 07/09/2000 Delegated Authority Report presented to Council. 07/09/2000 Application refused at Delegated Authority, as ‘The proposed satellite

dish would have an adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining residential lots due to its height and scale and visually obtrusive location’.

11/09/2000 Refusal issued to the applicant. In November 2003, the objecting property owner sold his property. On 26 April 2005, an adjoining owner informed the Council that the satellite dish had been erected. 27/04/2005 A site inspection revealed a large satellite dish and mast visible from

the front of the property and the road at the rear. Letter sent giving the property owner 14 days to submit a development application or remove the dish and mast.

11/05/2005 Second letter sent requesting removal of the dish and mast or submission of development application within 14 days.

26/05/2005 Application received for retrospective approval for the satellite dish. 01/06/2005 Acknowledgement letter sent to the applicant. 09/06/2005 Advertising commenced. 20/06/2005 Non objection received. 22/06/2005 Non objection received. 24/06/2005 Two objections received. 24/06/2005 Advertising concluded. 20/07/2005 Site visit conducted. 20/07/2005 Advice sought from installation companies regarding satellite dish 28/09/2005 reception/dish location requirements in the City of Joondalup. The applicant submitted in excess of 700 complaints regarding satellite dishes located within the City of Joondalup that the applicant believes are unlikely to comply with the limitations of DPS2 and/or to which approval may not have been given. The City is currently considering the most appropriate manner in which to investigate these complaints. Notwithstanding that other satellite dishes may have been erected without approval, the City is required to assess the subject application on its planning merits in accordance with the DPS2, relevant planning policies and the Residential Design Codes 2002.


DETAILS The applicant requests retrospective approval for the existing satellite dish, which is 3 metres in diameter and fixed to the roof of the ground floor of the existing two-storey dwelling. The height of the satellite dish, as shown on the plans, is approximately 6.5 metres above natural ground level at that location on the site. However, the mast can be extended beyond this point and the satellite dish tilts during operation, which further increases the overall height to approximately 8.3 m above natural ground level or 5.1m above the ground floor roof. The applicant has provided justification for the variations. The applicant’s letter is included as Attachment 5 to this report. A summary of the justification is below:

The dish has been re-painted from black to pewter blue to blend in with the sky, as much as possible

The mast when fully extended only reaches 1.6 meters Mounting the dish on the southern end of the building would not have been

functional and would have affected the aesthetics of the house and the streetscape

A mast is differentiated from a satellite dish [so that satellite dish and mast should be calculated separately]

The definition requires planning consent if the horizontal and vertical dimensions exceed two meters. Please note that a prime focus satellite dish is a portion of a sphere and has no horizontal or vertical dimensions

The satellite dish blends in with the roof and is barely noticeable from the front of the property

I have installed the dish very close to the roof Views do not belong to anyone My application for satellite dish should be treated the same as other applications

Issues and options considered: Council has the discretion to: • Approve the application without conditions; • Approve the application with conditions; or • Refuse the application. Council also has the option of commencing legal action to remove the unauthorised structure. Link to Strategic Plan: The proposal does not contribute to Key Focus Area Outcomes of City Development. Legislation – Statutory Provisions: Need for Planning Approval The DPS2 exempts certain types of development. In relation to a mast or antenna, the Scheme states the following:

6.1.3 The Council’s prior Planning Approval on land zoned by the Scheme is not required if the development consists of:


(a) the erection of a boundary fence; (b) the erection on a lot of a single house which will be the only building on

that lot and where a dwelling is a permitted (“P”) use in the zone in which that lot is situated. For the purposes of this subparagraph, the term “single house” does not include the erection of a mast or antenna where either its vertical or horizontal dimension exceeds two metres, the erection of which requires prior Planning Approval;

Interpretations The DPS2 defines a “mast and antenna” as follows:

mast or antenna : means any mast, aerial, satellite dish and other associated equipment used for the transmission or reception of radio or television signals or for other electronic communications. A television antenna on a dwelling roof being consistent with the predominant style and size of television antenna on other dwellings in the locality is not included, provided its vertical and horizontal dimensions do not exceed two metres. (See “communications antenna”.)

The Scheme defines a communication antenna as follows:

communications antenna: means any mast, antenna, aerial, satellite dish and other associated equipment used for the reception or transmission of television or radio signals or for other electronic communication where its vertical or horizontal dimensions exceed two metres but does not include telecommunications infrastructure.

Table 1 – The Zoning Table of the DPS2 lists, amongst other land uses, two specific land uses that relate to this application. Those land uses are “Communication Antenna” and “Communication Antenna – Domestic”. DPS2 defines a “communication antenna”, however, the Scheme does not define “communication antenna – domestic”. In an appeal to the Town Planning Appeal Tribunal (TPAT) against a decision made by the Council in relation to an unauthorised mast, the TPAT provided an interpretation of the term “communication antenna – domestic”. The following is an extract from that decision handed down by TPAT in the appeal Daines And City of Joondalup [2003] WATPAT 27 as follows:

20 Table 1 of the scheme (zoning table) makes reference to both a ‘Communication Antenna’ as defined and ‘Communication Antenna - Domestic’. There is no interpretation of what the latter means and the Tribunal is of the view that a ‘Communication Antenna - Domestic’ is two metres by two metres or less in size and associated with the everyday function of a domestic dwelling.

Should this matter proceed to a review by SAT, SAT will consider the decision and issues made by the then TPAT in the case of Daines And City of Joondalup as part of the review of Council’s decision. Based on the interpretation provided by the then TPAT, the proposed satellite dish would be considered as a “communication antenna”. Land Use Having regard to the TPAT interpretation, Table 1 – Zoning Table identifies a “communication antenna” as a “D” land use. A “D” land use is defined ion the Scheme as follows:


“D” A Use Class that is not permitted, but to which the Council may grant its approval after following the procedures laid down by subclause 6.6.2.

Planning Considerations When considering the application for retrospective Approval, Council is required to have regard to the following clauses: 6.8 MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED BY COUNCIL

6.8.1 The Council when considering an application for Planning Approval shall have due regard to the following:

(a) interests of orderly and proper planning and the preservation of the

amenity of the relevant locality;

(b) any relevant submissions by the applicant;

(c) any Agreed Structure Plan prepared under the provisions of Part 9 of the Scheme;

(d) any planning policy of the Council adopted under the provisions of

clause 8.11;

(e) any other matter which under the provisions of the Scheme the Council is required to have due regard;

(f) any policy of the Commission or its predecessors or successors or any

planning policy adopted by the Government of the State of Western Australia;

(g) any relevant proposed new town planning scheme of the Council or

amendment or proposed Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment insofar as they can be regarded as seriously entertained planning proposals;

(h) the comments or wishes of any public or municipal authority received as

part of the submission process;

(i) the comments or wishes of any objectors to or supporters of the application;

(j) any previous decision made by the Council in circumstances which are

sufficiently similar for the previous decision to be relevant as a precedent, provided that the Council shall not be bound by such precedent; and

(k) any other matter which in the opinion of the Council is relevant.

6.8.2 In addition to the matters referred to in the preceding subclause of this clause,

the Council when considering whether or not to approve a “D” or “A” use application shall have due regard to the following (whether or not by implication or otherwise they might have required consideration under the preceding subclauses of this clause):


(a) the nature of the proposed use and its relationship to the use of other land within the locality;

(b) the size, shape and character of the parcel of land to which the

application relates and the nature and siting of any proposed building; (c) the nature of the roads giving access to the subject land; (d) the parking facilities available or proposed and the likely requirements

for parking, arising from the proposed development; (e) any relevant submissions or objections received by the Council; and (f) such other matters as the Council considers relevant, whether of the

same nature as the foregoing or otherwise.

Enforcement Provisions The following provisions of the DPS2 relate to the enforcement of the Scheme, as this development has been constructed without Council planning approval: 8.8 GENERAL OBLIGATIONS

Subject to the provisions of the Act and all regulations made thereunder and to Part 7 of the Scheme, no person shall depart from or permit or suffer any departure from the requirements and provisions of the Scheme, nor shall any person commence or carry out or permit the commencement or carrying out of any development which:

(a) does not conform with the Scheme; or

(b) being or involving a use or other development which requires the approval of the Council or the Commission or both, does not have such approval or approvals is not permitted; or

(c) does not comply with the terms of any approval or any condition attached

thereto. 8.9 NOTICE FOR REMOVAL OF CERTAIN BUILDINGS

8.9.1 Twenty eight (28) days’ written notice is hereby prescribed as the notice to be given pursuant to Section 10 of the Town Planning Act for the removal of certain buildings.

8.9.2 Council may recover expenses under section 10(2) of the Act in a court of

competent jurisdiction.

8.10 OFFENCES

8.10.1 No person shall depart from or permit or suffer any departure from the requirements and provisions of the Scheme, nor shall any person use or suffer or permit the use of any land or building or undertake or suffer or permit the undertaking of any development within the Scheme Area:


(a) otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the Scheme; (b) unless all approvals required by the Scheme have been granted and

issued; (c) unless all conditions imposed upon the grant and issue of any approval

required by the Scheme have been and continue to be complied with; (d) unless all standards laid down and all requirements prescribed by the

Scheme or determined by the Council pursuant to the Scheme with respect to that building or that use of that part have been and continue to be complied with.

8.10.2 Any person who fails to comply with any of the provisions of the Scheme is

guilty of an offence and without prejudice to any other remedy given herein is liable to such penalties as are prescribed by Section 10 of the Act.

Risk Management considerations: Not Applicable Financial/Budget Implications: Costs could be incurred if Council is required to take legal action in relation to this matter. Policy Implications: Not Applicable Regional Significance: Not Applicable Sustainability Implications: Not Applicable Consultation: Comments were sought in accordance with the requirements of the Codes and DPS2 via letters sent to 6 surrounding and adjoining owners likely to be impacted by the development. The letter advised them of the proposed development, with plans and supporting documentation made available for perusal at the City’s offices for two weeks from 9 June 2005 to the 24 June 2005. Two letters of no objection with and two letters of objection have been received from adjacent and nearby owners with regard to the development. A summary of the submissions and responses to those submissions is shown below: • No objection • When the dish is fully extended it protrudes over 8 to 10 feet outside the property’s

normal profile. • It is out of character with the area.


• It will set a precedent in the area. • There is no need for a dish of this size in an obtrusive location. • Underground cable is available. • The structure damages both the character and value of the surrounding properties. • The application was previously refused • The dish obstructs our ocean view. • It devalues our property. • It is an eyesore. • When it rotates 180 degrees it has a huge impact on our view. • When it is ‘on’ it rises about 1 foot higher obstructing our view. Comments The following comments are made in relation to the application: Impact on Amenity The Codes in Clause 3.10.2 provide for the following incidental development: 3.10.2 External Fixtures Acceptable Development A2.1 Television aerials of the standard type, essential plumbing vent pipes above the

roofline and external rainwater downpipes. A2.1 Other external fixtures that: (i) are not visible from the street; (ii) are designed integrally with the building; or (iii) are located so as not to be visually obtrusive. A2.3 Antennas, satellite dishes and the like not visible from the street.

Performance Criteria

P2 External fixtures that do not detract from the streetscape or the visual amenity of residents or neighbouring properties.

The communications antenna is clearly visible from the street and adjoining properties. Its visibility is more distinct from the rear properties as ground levels are elevated above the level of the subject site. Additionally, the size and bulk of the dish at 3 metres in diameter plus the additional mast height, plainly contrasts with the surrounding structure of the house (see attached photos in Attachment 4).


Advice has been sought from satellite companies that install dishes in the area with regard to the achievability of reception from domestic properties. The advice received suggests that the lowest satellite that would need to be accessed is located at 17 degrees from horizontal to the northeast. However, the majority of satellites for domestic access are located at 42-45 degrees from horizontal to the north, or higher (+45 degrees). The dish needs a clear line of sight from dish to satellite in order to achieve a signal. Trees, fences, buildings etc can all interrupt the signal. There are two levels on the subject site due to a retained section in the rear portion of the yard. The dish could be located either immediately adjacent to the existing dwelling or on the raised level further away from the dwelling. In either scenario, the dish would be significantly less obtrusive to adjoining properties, and would not be visible from the street. It is considered, according to this advice, that the dish can be relocated within the subject property without impacting on the ability of the dish to receive signal. According to the plans and supporting documentation submitted, the dish exceeds the requirements of the DPS2 (maximum horizontal or vertical dimension of two metres) by 1 metre when not operating, 1 metre when the dish is tilted with the mast in its lowest position, and approximately 2.3 metres when the mast is extended. As it is located on the roof of the ground floor (fixed at approximately 4 metres above natural ground level), the height and size of the dish is further apparent so that the entire structure when extended sits at approximately 8.3 metres above natural ground level. Furthermore, the dish does not meet the Acceptable Development provisions or Performance Criteria of the Codes as it is clearly visible from the street in resting and active position, and the dish is visually obtrusive to neighbouring properties. Underground Cable The City has contacted service providers and Foxtel is available via underground cabling. A satellite dish is still required for access to any other commercial or domestic service satellite. Other Satellite Dishes and Antennae The City aims to investigate all complaints regarding satellite dishes and antennae that are already developed within the City. The City may determine that the development is already approved or meets the acceptable development standards and does not require an approval or was developed in accordance with a previous policy or legislation and therefore is acceptable or requires a retrospective planning approval. It is generally the case that complaints against existing satellite dishes and antennas come from immediately affected properties, and that these complaints are made regarding the negative impact that those developments have on the immediate neighbourhood amenity. Where the City assesses that a development, either proposed or retrospective, is acceptable after having due regard for relevant policies, legislation, and adjoining owners comments, it is likely that the City will approve that development. However, if the development is not considered acceptable, the City will require the removal or alteration of that development. That is to say, that each case will be considered on the merits of that particular case. COMMENT It is considered that the dish in its current location detracts from the streetscape and the amenity of neighbouring properties. This is a key issue of concern with the evaluation of such proposals.


The issue has raised concerns about the height and size of antenna required to receive appropriate quality of TV reception. This aspect will be considered as a component of the examination of the forthcoming review of the District Planning Scheme No 2. In the meantime, a policy is also being prepared to provide appropriate guidelines. The policy is likely to be presented to the Council as soon as possible. Notwithstanding that examination, it is apparent that this application exceeds the bulk and height of a communications antenna that is generally contemplated and acceptable in a residential area. Having regard to the: • details of the application; • the submissions received during the consultation process; and • provisions of the District Planning Scheme No 2; and • the Residential Design Codes;

It is recommended that Council refuses the application. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 Locality Plan Attachment 2 Development Plans Attachment 3 Aerial Photo Attachment 4 Photos Attachment 5 Applicant Justification VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority MOVED Cmr Smith, SECONDED Cmr Fox that Council: 1 Having regard to the orderly and proper planning of the locality, REFUSES the

application for planning consent dated 26 May 2005 submitted by M R Pearce, the applicant, on behalf of the owner(s), MR and PG Pearce for Single House – Retrospective approval for a communications antenna (oversized satellite dish and mast) on Lot 595 (16) Mainsail Drive, Ocean Reef, for the following reasons:

(a) The communication antenna is clearly visible from the primary street,

which will have an adverse impact on the streetscape;

(b) The communications antenna is visually obtrusive to neighbouring properties, which will have an adverse impact on the amenity of adjoining properties;

2 ADVISES the applicant that:

(a) The unauthorised communication antenna shall be removed within 28 days of issue of the refusal;

(b) Any proposal to erect a communication antenna requiring approval

under the City of Joondalup District Planning Scheme No 2, the Residential Design Codes 2002 or any relevant Policy of the City shall be lodged with the City prior to the commencement of any works whatsoever;


(c) Should the applicant fail to remove the communications antenna in

accordance with part (2)(a) of Council’s resolution, the City is authorised to commence legal action after the specified time;

3 NOTES that the forthcoming review of the District Planning Scheme will include

a review of the issue of satellite dishes and antennas within the community and that a policy on this issue is currently under development.

Cmr Smith spoke to the Motion. The Motion was Put and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (5/0) Appendix 17 refers To access this attachment on electronic document, click here: Attach17brf061205.pdf CJ282 - 12/05 PROPOSED CHILD DAY CARE CENTRE: LOT 207

(87) BLACKALL DRIVE, NORTH EAST CORNER, ALLENSWOOD ROAD, GREENWOOD – [86130]

WARD: South RESPONSIBLE Mr Clayton Higham DIRECTOR: Director Planning and Community Development CJ051206_BRF.DOC:ITEM 20 PURPOSE To request Council’s determination of an application for planning approval for a Child Day Care Centre (CDCC) development at Lot 207 (87) Blackall Drive, north-east corner Allenswood Drive, Greenwood. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The application for planning approval is for the proposed conversion of the existing house into a 19 place Child Day Care Centre on Lot 207 (87) Blackall Drive, Greenwood. The lot is located on the north-eastern corner of Blackall Drive and Allenswood Road, Greenwood, and it is within a single residential area. The CDCC is a discretionary (‘D’) land use, that is, a land use class that is not permitted, but to which the Council may grant its approval after following advertising procedures. The nature of the proposed commercial use of the site and the times that this activity occurs represents an intensification of the use of the site, when compared to a single house, which is the predominant land use within this locality. When the application was advertised for community comment, adverse comment was received from surrounding property owners.



The proposed development does not satisfy the criteria for the location of CDCCs, as set out in Council’s Local Planning Policy 3.1 – Child Care Centres, and does not comply with some requirements of the District Planning Scheme No 2 (DPS2). Whilst a development of this type can satisfy a community need, the location of the proposed land use and design of the development is considered inappropriate and likely to adversely impact upon the amenity of the adjoining and surrounding residential properties. On the basis of the above, it is recommended that the application for planning approval be refused. BACKGROUND

Suburb/Location: Greenwood Applicant: Ljubica Ristovski Owner: Karl Ristovski Zoning: DPS: Residential MRS: Urban Site Area: 690m2

Structure Plan: Not applicable The application was submitted on 6 April 2005. Issues were raised with the applicants in relation to parking, landscaping and other matters, and as a result, amended plans were received on 30 September 2005. DETAILS The proposal involves a change in land use, converting the existing single house into a CDCC. The existing building is setback as follows: • 7.1m from the southern (Blackall Drive) boundary; • 7.5m from the western (Allenswood Road) boundary; • 3.5m from the northern boundary; and • 9.0m from the eastern boundary The subject site has a land area of 690m2 and is located on the northeast corner of Blackall Drive and Allenswood Road. The closest commercial centre is approximately 750m away while the closest primary school is 450m away from the site. The surrounding land uses are single residential houses. There is an existing roundabout at the road junction. The CDCC is proposed to operate between the hours of 7:00am to 6:30pm, five days per week (Monday to Friday), excluding Public Holidays. Vehicle and pedestrian access to the site is from Blackall Drive. The proposed crossover is setback approximately 5.8 metres from the common boundary with 1 Annato Street (the property that abuts the rear of this site). The car parking area serving the proposed land use: • is located on the eastern side of the development site; • it abuts the property boundaries of 1 Annato Street (eastern side) and 94

Blackall Drive (eastern part of the northern side); • has a central driveway between the existing building, two car parking spaces

and a reversing bay on its western side and 7 parking spaces on the eastern side (along the common boundary with 1 Annato Street);


• provides a total of nine spaces, which includes one disabled parking bay; • has a 0.6 metre landscaping strip along the eastern side of the parking area

and the property at 1 Annato Street and a landscaping strip between the northern end of the car parking area and the property at 94 Allenswood Drive of between 0.5 metres to 1.0 metre; and

• has a reversing width ranging from 4.0 metres (northern portion of the site) to more than 6.1 metres for the southern portion of the parking area.

The single house at 1 Annato Street, Greenwood is setback approximately 10 metres from the common boundary with the development site. There is a shed on 1 Annato Street, Greenwood, which abuts the subject property. The play areas for the centre are proposed to be located in two primary areas, with the areas linked to each other. The northern play areas are located next to the property that fronts Allenswood Road. The remaining play areas front the corner of Allenswood Road and Blackall Drive, Greenwood. In support of the application, the applicant has provided: • A letter stating that there is an identified demand for additional Child Care

Centres within the Greenwood area and that there will be minimal interruption to the traffic flow on Allenswood Road and Blackall Drive as the existing roundabout regulates the traffic flow at this junction;

• A traffic engineer’s report; and • An acoustic report. Following objections raised by surrounding property owners during the advertising process, the applicant has provided additional information, which is outlined below: It has to be highlighted that the purpose of the proposed Child Care Centre is to develop a Child Care Service, which will be run similar to a family day care service instead of a commercial type Child Care Centre. There is a demand for additional Child Care Centre in the Greenwood area where there are four primary Schools and only one Child Care Centre (located on the eastern end of this suburb), which would not be sufficient to care for the children before they reach the school age. Because of the specific: • size (caring only for 19 children) • site characteristics (being within the residential area and away from big arterial

roads), • design (preserving the exact visual appearance of a private dwelling) • nature (being run very similar to a Family Day Care in a domestic, home-like

environment) This proposed Child Care Centre will not have an adverse impact on the amenity of the area or the level of service provided by similar existing or approved facilities enjoyed by the community. On the contrary, it will address the needs and expectations of the commuting parents for a new, differently operated Child Care Centre (not as others operate as Commercial ventures).


There will be 9 parking bays provided on-site which will accommodate the needs for the reciprocal arrangements: Four parking bays for staff (three of them are already allocated and labelled for the staff usage) and 5 for parents including a parking bay allocated in close proximity to the main entry of the building which ensures easy and safe wheelchair access to the Centre. All the parking bays will be workable in terms of reversing and manoeuvrability and sufficient internal manoeuvrability space will be provided on the site to accommodate ease of access/egress. The traffic circulation system is designed to allow safe drop-off and collection of children and safe movement and parking for parent, staff, visitors and service vehicles. In addition to that, there is an abundance of on-street parking bays along Allenswood Road, at only 20 metres from the dwelling. This area is also serviced by public transport, precisely by two different bus lines, whose bus-stopping stations are located within walking distance from the proposed Child Care Centre. For greater safety of the pedestrians walking along the footpath on the north side of Blackall Drive, a speed bumper will be built on the entrance/exist of the car park of the proposed Child Care Centre. Also, the proposed Child Care Centre will provide a service picking up the children from their homes (service available to the parents residing within the suburb) in the mornings. This will reduce the need for parking spaces on site, and also reduce the noise level coming from opening/closing the doors and starting the engines of the vehicles caused by dropping off children at the Centre. The Western Australian Planning Commission Draft Policy regarding Child Care Centres states that ‘the visual appearance of the development should reflect the character of the area and enhance its amenity”’. The provision of the proposed Child Care Centres complies with the Policy because the visual appearance of the existing private dwelling will stay intact. The Western Australian Planning Commission Draft Policy regarding Child Care Centres states that ‘Sites selected for child care centres should be of sufficient size to accommodate the development, including all buildings and structures, parking for staff and parents, pick-up and drop-off areas, outdoor play areas and landscaping…’ The subject area is 690m2, which will still be sufficient to comfortably accommodate 19 children and comply with the policy regarding the parking space for staff and parents, outdoor play areas, buildings and structures. Issues and options considered: Council has the discretion to: • Approve the application without conditions; • Approve the application with conditions; or • Refuse the application. Link to Strategic Plan: Not applicable


Legislation – Statutory Provisions: A CDCC is a “D” use in a Residential area. A “D” use means:

“A use class that is not permitted, but to which the Council may grant its approval after following the procedures laid down by subclause 6.6.2.” Clause 6.6.2 requires that Council in exercising discretion to approve or refuse an application shall have regard to the provisions of clause 6.8, which is shown below:

6.8 MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED BY COUNCIL


(a) interests of orderly and proper planning and the preservation of the amenity of

the relevant locality; (b) any relevant submissions by the applicant; (c) any Agreed Structure Plan prepared under the provisions of Part 9 of the

Scheme; (d) any planning policy of the Council adopted under the provisions of clause

8.11; (e) any other matter which under the provisions of the Scheme the Council is

required to have due regard; (f) any policy of the Commission or its predecessors or successors or any

planning policy adopted by the Government of the State of Western Australia; (g) any relevant proposed new town planning scheme of the Council or


(h) the comments or wishes of any public or municipal authority received as part

of the submission process; (i) the comments or wishes of any objectors to or supporters of the application; (j) any previous decision made by the Council in circumstances which are



With the proposed use being a “D” use, the additional matters identified in Clause 6.8.2 also require Council consideration in relation to this application for Planning Approval:

6.8.2 In addition to the matters referred to in the preceding subclause of this clause, the Council, when considering whether or not to approve a “D” or “A” use application, shall have due regard to the following (whether or not by implication or otherwise they might have required consideration under the preceding subclauses of this clause):


(g) the nature of the proposed use and its relationship to the use of other land within the locality;

(h) the size, shape and character of the parcel of land to which the

application relates and the nature and siting of any proposed building; (i) the nature of the roads giving access to the subject land; (j) the parking facilities available or proposed and the likely requirements

for parking, arising from the proposed development; (k) any relevant submissions or objections received by the Council; and (l) such other matters as the Council considers relevant, whether of the


4.8 CAR PARKING STANDARDS

4.8.1 The design of off-street parking areas including parking for disabled shall be in accordance with Australian Standards AS 2890.1 or AS 2890.2 as amended from time to time. Car parking areas shall be constructed and maintained to the satisfaction of the Council.

4.8.2 The number of on-site car parking bays to be provided for specified development shall be in accordance with Table 2. Where development is not specified in Table 2 the Council shall determine the parking standard. The Council may also determine that a general car parking standard shall apply irrespective of the development proposed in cases where it considers this to be appropriate.

TABLE 2 (CLAUSE 4.8) - CAR PARKING STANDARDS

USE CLASS NO OF ON-SITE PARKING BAYS

(NLA = NET LETTABLE AREA) Child Care Centre Not less than 5 and 1 per staff member

Development Standards under District Planning Scheme 2 (DPS2) and Local

Planning Policy 3.1 – Child Care Centre

Standard/Requirement Required Provided

Front setback (Blackall Drive) 6.0m minimum 7.1m Rear setback ( northern side) 1.5m minimum 3.5m Side setback (Allenswood Rd) 1.5m minimum 7.5m Eastern side setback 1.5m minimum 9m Car parking 9 bays minimum 9 bays Landscaping 8%/3m width Does not Comply

(6.4% nil width) Fencing 1.2m and 1.8m solid

(max) Existing 1.8m solid fence.

Risk Management considerations: Not Applicable Financial/Budget Implications: Not Applicable


Policy Implications: Local Planning Policy 3.1 – Child Care Centres This planning policy sets out guidelines for the development of a CDCC, including the requirements for the provision of car parking and landscaping, the preferred location of CDCCs, as well as the need to advertise proposals due to the possible detrimental effect on the amenity of residential areas. The proposal does not meet certain criteria set out in this policy. Regional Significance: Not Applicable Sustainability Implications: Not Applicable Consultation: The proposal was advertised for public comment for a period of 21 days. Adjoining and nearby owners were contacted in writing, two signs were placed on the site, and an advertisement placed in the local newspaper. Advertising closed on 20 June 2005. A total of 23 submissions were received, including a petition signed by 33 persons objecting to the proposed Chid Care Centre in relation to parking, traffic, noise, loss of property values and other matters. The objections are summarised below:

Submission Technical Comments

The property does not have sufficient parking facilities to accommodate potential customers resulting in customer vehicles being parked at peak times of the day and night on neighbouring properties and driveways thereby blocking access to residents and road users. The property is located on a corner which prohibits people parking on the street within 9 metres of the corner resulting in neighbouring properties being used for parking and access to the proposed child care centre. The street location of the property is potentially unsafe specifically for a child care centre as there is a large volume of traffic passing through the area especially at peak times (7-9.30am and 3-6.30pm). The surrounding area is a residential area where there are no other business properties which means the proposed child care centre will attract increased volumes of traffic to an already busy intersection at peak times. Object to the proposal to change the status

The number of complying car parking bays has not been provided in accordance with Table 2 – Car Parking Standards. The dimensions of some of those bays do not comply with relevant standards. See above The Traffic Impact Statement report indicates that there would be no traffic impact. Refer to comments on car parking. See above



of the property from a residential single house to a child care centre as this will detract from our property’s future saleability due to the numerous reasons listed above. The proposal for a child care centre will reduce our ability to fully use and enjoy our property due to the fact that the level of noise and activity coming from the neighbouring property will be significantly increased and will undoubtedly impact on the outdoor and access areas. The proposed child care centre would cause disruption to the lifestyle as the adjoining people work on shift work and are often required to sleep during the day. The additional noise and activity generated from having a business next door would negatively impact his day-to-day living. The proposed child care centre would unduly attract the attention of our pet dog who would bark at unusual and excitable noises (children’s voices) thus creating a problem for us as pet owners with other neighbours who would undoubtedly get annoyed with the barking and make complaints against us.

Noted With respect to the noise, an acoustic report has been submitted and the recommendations are acceptable to the City to address acoustic issues. Although the noise levels are within acceptable standards, issues may arise due to the type of daytime noise being different to that which is currently experienced. Not a planning consideration.

Dispute the proponent’s assertion that there is an identified need for additional child care facilities in the area. There are at least 11 or 12 centres within the 3 to 5 kilometres of this site. Additionally, there are 20 Family Day Care centres nearby.

The commercial viability of CDCC is not a planning consideration.

The positioning of the playground area in the proposed development (the playground is proposed to be situated on the front right hand corner of the block which is the point closest to both of these main roads at the roundabout. We have already seen what happens when a vehicle goes through a child care facility we feel this would be tempting fate by ill advised planning. The fact that the developer is planning to use the car park bays on Allenswood Drive that were put there for the use of the local residents, not to encourage business development in a residential area. When these bays are not vacant are parents going to drop off their toddlers unless they park illegally down side streets or on the other side of Allenswood Road and have to cross one of two very busy main roads to get to this facility. Also the fact that the entrance

The Traffic Impact Statement report indicates that there is no traffic issue that needs to be addressed. The development (if supported) would be required to provide a minimum number of parking spaces on the site. The proposed development does not provide the required number of complying car parking bays.



would be located just past the round about. None of the surrounding residents were approached by the owners of this property to gauge the reaction to this proposal. The property owners are also not living in this area so how can they gauge the needs of the community without interaction with the local residents. The fact that the Joondalup City Council contacted only 8 houses in the vicinity of the proposed development surprised and outraged many of the local residents as this development will affect more than them. The billboards on the property went up after some of the local residents who had not received letters went to view the site plans.

Noted The City contacts the immediate neighbours by mail. In addition, the proposal was advertised in the local newspaper and two signs were erected on site advising the community of the proposed development.

This parking layout will put children’s safety at risk. The storage shed located in the north-east end of the site can only be accessed through the car park. This means staff will be carrying equipment through the parent drop off bay or into the car park and therefore exiting the licensed confines of the centre which is in contravention of the Child Care Licensing Regulations 1988. The proposed site does not comply with the Planning policy as it is located on what is classified as an Access Road, the policy clearly states centres should not be located in or adjacent to Access roads. The plans submitted do not comply with the City of Joondalup’s Landscape Policy requiring a minimum of 8% landscaping and a 3 metre landscaping setback to Allenswood Road and Blackall Drive.

The applicant has amended plans, however, the proposed parking area does not comply with the DPS2. The applicant has amended plans. There will be a store provided within the building and the existing shed will be demolished to cater for parking spaces. Noted Noted


Traffic Report A Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) was received. The report has been found acceptable to the City. However, concern still exists in relation to the potential for street and verge parking, as visitors are not required to park on-site. If street parking does occur, Council may need to implement traffic management measures to address this matter. Acoustic Report An acoustic assessment report was submitted which is considered acceptable by the City to address acoustic issues. However, there still remains concern over the nuisance factor of the impact of noise associated with vehicle movements in close proximity to the adjoining residential property and noise from the play areas. These noises are not covered by the legislation and need to be assessed from an amenity perspective. COMMENT The proposed development will involve: • a change in land use from single houses to a CDCC;

• the construction of a car parking area on the eastern side of the site, and

abutting the single houses located at 1 Annato Street and 94 Allenswood Drive.

• the location of the outdoor play areas around the proposed building. Lot Size The Western Australian Planning Commission Draft Policy about Child Care Centre indicates as a general rule, sites in residential areas should be of regular shape and greater than 1000m2. However the existing site is of an area of 690m2 which does not comply with this part of the draft policy. Location in relation to Other Land Uses One of the objectives of the Residential Zone, as outlined in Clause 3.4 of DPS2, is that it is intended to be primarily for residential development in an environment where high standards of amenity and safety predominate to ensure the health and welfare of the population. The Zone is also to provide for certain cultural and recreational development to occur where Council considers the same to be appropriate in residential neighbourhoods. The CDCC is likely to add value to the area by offering a community facility and bring additional employment opportunities to the surrounding neighbourhood. The proposed land use is a prohibited land use, although Council may grant its approval if it is satisfied with regard to the merits of the proposal and the matters to be considered as set out in the DPS2 and other relevant documents. A survey of the surrounding area has revealed that the nearest commercial centre is located approximately 750 metres away and the Allenswood Primary School approximately 450 metres away. All other development within close proximity to the development site consists of residential uses or local reserves.


Council’s Local Planning Policy 3.1 states that: “Where possible it is preferred to locate Child Care Centres adjacent to non-residential uses such as shopping centres, Medical Centres/Consulting Rooms, School sites and Community Purpose Buildings to minimise the impact such Centres will have on the amenity of residential area.

The location of the proposed CDCC is adjacent to single residential uses and does not comply with the policy. Location in Relation to Roads The CDCC is located within close proximity to a Local Distributor Road (Allenswood Road) that is adjacent to an Access Road (Blackall Drive) in a residential area, as defined in the Perth Metropolitan Area Functional Road Hierarchy (1999). This is contrary to the direction contained within Local Planning Policy 3.1 which states CDCCs should not be adjacent to Access Roads in residential areas where amenity, safety and aesthetics must take priority. Such centres should be located on Local Distributor Roads so that they will not conflict with traffic control devices and will not encourage the use of nearby access roads for turning movements. Vehicular access and egress to the site will be from Blackall Drive. Allenswood Road is a dual carriageway having one lane in each direction. However with the existing roundabout at the intersection of Allenswood Road and Blackall Drive, traffic from both lanes of Allenswood Road can access Blackall Drive. The proposed crossover location is approximately 29 metres from this intersection. A house may generate an approximate 8-10 vehicular trips per day, whereas the traffic consultants have indicated that the proposed use may generate approximately 69 vehicular trips per day, which was based on the child care centre operating with a maximum of 19 children at any one time. The increased usage will result in additional traffic movement into Blackall Drive, which is classified as an access road. Car Parking Dimensions and Numbers Concern is expressed in relation to the intensified use of the site with the increased number of vehicular trips at a point close to the junction. Further, whilst parking is provided on-site, it is not possible to require or enforce people to use those on-site parking spaces. If street parking or verge parking occurs, concern is raised in relation to the potential impact on traffic safety, especially in relation to vehicles exiting from Allenswood Road or traffic travelling towards Allenswood Road along Blackall Drive. The car parking area provided for the proposed development would be located between the building and the property at 1 Annato Street. It will not be easily visible from the street as there is an existing wall around most of the street boundaries. Vehicular access onto Allenswood Road has not been proposed. According to Local Planning Policy 3.1, there is a requirement of 5 car bays for visitors and 4 for staff, which equates to a total of 9 car bays The three staff car parking bays at the north-eastern corner are considered unacceptable as they will not allow vehicles to park or leave the site in a forward gear. The driveway is 4 metres wide, and will not permit acceptable turning into/out of the bays. The standard requirement is that the driveway be 6.1 metres wide. As the access way is underwidth, this effectively results in three of the parking spaces not meeting the Australian Standard.


The concentration of street traffic flows at peak times and when there are special occasions, may lead to overflow and drivers may elect to park on the verge or street for convenience. Though there are parking spaces along Allenswood Road, it is considered that they should not be used as a parking facility for the CDCC. Verge and street parking at Blackall Drive during peak traffic times and at other times (ie special occasions or events) would impact on the safety of the road system and would more than likely adversely impact upon the amenity of the residential properties in this section of Blackall Drive. Landscaping and Fencing The proposed development does not provide a three metre wide landscaping strip along Blackall Drive and does not comply with the 8% of site area for landscaping. However, should planning approval be given to this proposal, conditions relating to the landscaping should be imposed. Further, there is an existing fence along the street boundaries. Should planning approval be given to this proposed development, any fence shall be located behind the 3 metre landscaping strip required along Blackall Road and should be conditioned to be visually permeable as defined by the R-Codes. The combination of satisfying the landscaping requirements and fencing requirements will reduce the amount of area provided on site, as play areas for the centre. Noise Vehicles used by both staff and clients will access the site before 7:00am and throughout the day. The parking area will abut the property at 1 Annato Street and 98 Allenswood Drive. Staff and visitor parking is proposed to be allocated to those parking spaces located against the eastern side boundary of the adjoining property. The three adjoining neighbours have raised concerns in relation to the potential impact of noise. It is to be noted that the ownership of 3 Annato Street has changed after the advertising period had closed. Notwithstanding this, Council is required, in terms of the orderly and proper planning of the locality, to be satisfied that the nuisance noise from the development, which is not controlled by the noise regulations, will not adversely impact on the amenity of the adjoining residential properties. Concern is expressed in relation to the potential impact that the use of the car parking area will have on the amenity of the adjoining property at 1 Annato Street. The parking spaces will abut the outdoor living area of 1 Annato Street and the existing dwelling is set back at 10 metres from the common boundary of the proposed CDCC. However it is considered that there is still a potential for the adjoining property to be impacted by the noise. There are no substantial noise attenuation proposals that will minimise the impact of vehicular noise. Whilst the noise from traffic movements (possibly before 7:00am) and the opening and closing of doors may comply with the noise regulations, the nuisance factor associated with this activity is not controlled by that legislation. Having regard to the location and design of the car parking area, the proposed operation of the centre and its relationship with the location and design of the adjoining single house on No 1 Annato Street, it is considered that this aspect of the proposal will have an adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining single house. The applicant is proposing to locate major outdoor play areas against the side (rear section) boundary of 94 Allenswood Road. This play area has the potential to be a noise nuisance factor to the property at 94 Allenswood Road as the building is setback around 1 metre from the common boundary.


Conclusion The development of CDCCs can satisfy a community need, however, it is a commercial activity which needs to be located carefully within the fabric of an existing residential area, such as with residential land uses. It is considered that the proposed development will adversely impact on the surrounding locality due to: • the proposal (non-residential use) being located adjacent to single houses rather than

non-residential uses; • the anticipated increase in noise levels based on the design and activities associated

with the proposed use; • non-compliance with the parking standards referred to in Clause 4.8.1 • non-compliance with the required parking standard due to certain parts of the car

parking area not complying with the relevant Australian Standard; • increased traffic noise and movement onto the site and within the site; and • potential for verge and street parking to occur in Blackall Drive, and • non-compliance with the landscaping and fencing requirements. Having regard to the: • details of the application; • justification submitted by the applicant; • submissions received during the consultation process; • details provided in the acoustic and traffic consultant’s reports; • provisions of the District Planning Scheme No 2; and • provisions of Policy 3.1 – Child Care Centres; It is recommended that the application for planning approval be refused. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 Locality Plan Attachment 2 Development Plans VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority MOVED Cmr Anderson, SECONDED Cmr Clough that Council: 1 REFUSES the application for planning approval for the proposed 19 place Child

Day Care Centre at Lot 207 (87) Blackall Drive, Greenwood for the following reasons:

The proposal is contrary to the principles of orderly and proper planning as:

(a) The proposal would unreasonably impact upon the prevailing amenity of

the surrounding single residential area; (b) The commercial nature of the proposed use is not compatible with

existing uses of other land within the locality, contrary to clause 6.8.2(a) of DPS2;


(c) The number of complying car parking spaces is below the minimum number of parking spaces required by Clause 4.8.2 of the District Planning Scheme No 2;

(d) The proposal does not comply with the District Planning Scheme No 2

landscaping requirements;

(e) The potential for car parking overflows onto the access road and the adverse impact on adjoining and surrounding residential properties, has the potential to unreasonably impact on the function of the road and verge parking at peak times;

(f) The proposal does not accord with Council’s Policy 3.1 – Child Care

Centres.

2 ADVISES the submitters of Council’s decision. Cmr Anderson spoke to the Motion. The Motion was Put and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (5/0) Appendix 18 refers To access this attachment on electronic document, click here: Attach18brf061205.pdf CJ283 - 12/05 PROPOSED MODIFICATION TO TOWN PLANNING

DELEGATION – [46302] [07032] WARD: All RESPONSIBLE Mr Clayton Higham DIRECTOR: Planning and Community Development CJ051206_BRF.DOC:ITEM 21 PURPOSE For Council to consider modifications to the Town Planning delegation to enable the Director Planning & Community Development and Manager Approvals, Planning & Environmental Services to issue notices/directions on behalf of the City when a person has contravened the District Planning Scheme No 2 (the Scheme). EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Matters of non conformity with the Scheme and options available to the City are outlined in clauses 8.9 and 8.10 of the Scheme. Breaches of the Scheme could include situations where: a land use is conducted where planning approval is required but has not been obtained; or

• where the conditions of planning approval are not being adhered to; or • a situation where a building is constructed without planning approval; or



• a building constructed which is not in accordance with the conditions of that approval; or

• matters that could impact on the amenity of the locality, such as unkempt land, incomplete buildings, nuisance through noise, smoke, dust etc.

If a party is in contravention of the Scheme, the City has four options in regard to action. Firstly, the City could issue a notice/direction under clause 8.9 of the Scheme (and section 10 of the Town Planning & Development Act 1928) requiring the removal of the building or cessation of use concerned. Secondly, the City can commence legal action and prosecute under clause 8.10 of the Scheme (and section 10AB of the Town Planning & Development Act 1928). Where successfully argued in a court, penalties of up to $50,000 and a daily penalty of up to $5,000 can be applied by a court. Thirdly the City can take both actions one and two above, that is the City can issue a notice and then if the matter is not resolved it can commence legal action. Fourthly, if the City believes that the contravention may be able to comply with the Scheme or brought into compliance with the Scheme, an application for retrospective approval can be lodged under clause 6.12 of the Scheme and determined accordingly. At the present time, notices/directions issued under the Scheme are not included under the current delegation notice. The delegated power to issue notices was included in previous delegation notices, but when the form of delegation notice was modified in late 2004, the delegation to issue notices was not included. In order to enforce the provisions of the scheme and deal with matters of non conformity in an efficient and effective manner with a prompt response, it is proposed to allow such matters to be dealt with under delegated authority. BACKGROUND The town planning delegation notice adopted by Council on 11 June 2002 (Item CJ122-06/02 refers) included a clause that “delegates to the Director Planning and Community Development to issue notices under Clause 8.6 of District Planning Scheme No 2 with the aim of securing conformity with the Scheme.” The town planning delegation notice adopted by Council on 29 April 2003 (Item CJ078-04/03 refers) included the following clause “with regard to breaches of District Planning Scheme No 2 delegates authority to the Director Planning and Community Development to proceed with appropriate legal action with the aim of securing conformity with the Scheme. The town planning delegation notice adopted by Council on 18 May 2004 (Item C34-05/04 refers) also included the above clause. The Council adopted a new Town Planning Delegation at the meeting held on 12 October 2004 that was presented in a new format. It is this delegation notice that did not give delegation power to deal with matters of non conformity with the Scheme. The report did not outline that it was intended to remove the delegation to deal with matters of non conformity with the Scheme. Subsequent minor modifications to the Town Planning Delegation Notice were adopted by Council at its meeting of 19 July 2005, to improve the operation of the delegation notice. However, since the implementation of the most recent delegation notice, the matter of issuing notices/directions under the Town Planning & Development Act 1928 has been identified as no longer being covered in the notice. In the interests of good governance and ensuring a timely response to matters of non conformity with the Scheme, it is proposed to modify the delegation notice to enable notices/directions to be issued, under delegated authority.


DETAILS Issues and options considered: To continue with the current process will result in time delays in responding to the enforcement of the Scheme. Further, the time costs in dealing with minor breaches would not be an effective and efficient use of Council resources in responding to those issues. By allowing notices to be issued under delegated authority, the City can respond to such matters, which are usually brought to the attention of the City via complaints from residents, in a more timely manner. Link to Strategic Plan: 4.3.3 Provide fair and transparent decision-making process. Legislation – Statutory Provisions: Clause 8.8 of the Scheme outlines the general obligations for compliance; Clause 8.9 outlines the time frame for written notice when issuing a direction/notice; and clause 8.10 identifies that any party not complying with these provisions is guilty of an offence. Clause 8.6 of the Scheme permits town planning functions to be delegated. Clause 8.2 and 8.3 relate to matters that may affect the amenity of an area. The clauses read as follows: 8.8 GENERAL OBLIGATIONS

Subject to the provisions of the Act and all regulations made there under and to Part 7 of the Scheme, no person shall depart from or permit or suffer any departure from the requirements and provisions of the Scheme, nor shall any person commence or carry out or permit the commencement or carrying out of any development which:

(a) does not conform with the Scheme; or

(b) being or involving a use or other development which requires the approval of the Council or the Commission or both, does not have such approval or approvals is not permitted; or

(c) does not comply with the terms of any approval or any condition attached

thereto. 8.9 NOTICE FOR REMOVAL OF CERTAIN BUILDINGS

8.9.1 Twenty eight (28) days’ written notice is hereby prescribed as the notice to be given pursuant to Section 10 of the Town Planning Act for the removal of certain buildings.

8.9.2 Council may recover expenses under section 10(2) of the Act in a

court of competent jurisdiction.


8.10 OFFENCES

8.10.1 No person shall depart from or permit or suffer any departure from the requirements and provisions of the Scheme, nor shall any person use or suffer or permit the use of any land or building or undertake or suffer or permit the undertaking of any development within the Scheme Area:

(a) otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the

Scheme; (b) unless all approvals required by the Scheme have been

granted and issued; (c) unless all conditions imposed upon the grant and issue of any

approval required by the Scheme have been and continue to be complied with;

(d) unless all standards laid down and all requirements

prescribed by the Scheme or determined by the Council pursuant to the Scheme with respect to that building or that use of that part have been and continue to be complied with.

8.10.2 Any person who fails to comply with any of the provisions of the

Scheme is guilty of an offence and without prejudice to any other remedy given herein is liable to such penalties as are prescribed by Section 10 of the Act.

8.6 DELEGATION OF DEVELOPMENT CONTROL POWERS, AND POWERS AND

DUTIES IN RELATION TO OTHER PLANNING FUNCTIONS

8.6.1 The Council may, either generally or in a particular case or particular class of case or cases, by resolution passed by an absolute majority of Council, delegate to all or any of the persons or committees referred to in Schedule 6 any power conferred or duly imposed on the Council under this Scheme.

8.6.2 Any delegation made under sub-cause 8.6.1 shall have effect for the

period of twelve (12) months following the resolution unless the Council stipulates a lesser or greater period in the resolution.

8.6.3 A delegation of authority pursuant to the provisions of this clause has

effect and may be exercised according to its tenor, but is revocable at the will of the Council and does not preclude the Council from exercising the power.

8.6.4 A resolution to revoke or amend a delegation under this clause may be

passed by a simple majority. 8.6.5 A committee, member or officer exercising the power delegated

pursuant to the provisions of this clause shall comply with the provisions of the Scheme governing the exercise of the power of the Council, insofar as such provisions are reasonably applicable.


8.6.6 A person who is or has been a delegate of the Council is not personally liable for anything done or omitted in good faith in, or in connection with, the exercise or purported exercise of any powers conferred, or the carrying out of any duty imposed on the Council by this Scheme.

8.2 AMENITY

8.2.1 No building shall be so constructed, finished or left unfinished that its external appearance would significantly detract from the amenity of the locality or tend to depreciate the value of adjoining property. All land and buildings shall be so used and maintained as to preserve the local amenity.

8.2.2 No land, building or appliance shall be used in such a manner as to

permit the escape therefrom of smoke, dust, fumes, odour, noise, glare, vibration or waste products in such quantity or extent or in such a manner as will create or be a nuisance to any inhabitant, or to traffic or persons using any land or roads in the vicinity.

8.2.3 If the Council forms the opinion that there has been a breach of the

requirements of the preceding subclauses it may, by notice in writing, require the owner to make good the breach in the manner and within the time stated in the notice. The notice may be served on the owner personally or by posting it to the last address of the owner known to the Council, and if served by post, shall be deemed to have been served three (3) clear days after the date of posting.

8.2.4 Any person upon whom a notice is served pursuant to this clause may,

within 28 days of the date of service of the notice on that person, appeal pursuant to Part V of the Act against the requirements of the notice and, where any such appeal is lodged the effect of the notice shall be suspended until a decision to uphold, quash or vary the notice has been made on the appeal or the appeal has been withdrawn, whereupon the time stated in the notice shall again begin to run.

8.2.5 Failure to comply with a notice under this clause shall be a breach of

the provisions of the Scheme.

8.3 UNKEMPT LAND

8.3.1 On any land within the Scheme Area any undergrowth, refuse, rubbish or disused material which in the opinion of the Council is likely to affect adversely the value of adjoining property or the health, comfort or convenience of the inhabitants thereof, the Council may cause a notice to be served on the owner or occupier of such land requiring that the land is cleared of trees, scrub, undergrowth, refuse or rubbish, or such refuse, rubbish or disused material is removed from such land within a specified period.

8.3.2 Every owner or occupier of land upon whom a notice is served shall

comply with such notice within the time period therein specified.


8.3.3 Where the owner or occupier does not clear the land or remove the refuse, rubbish or disused material as required by the notice given by the Council, the Council may without payment or any compensation in respect thereof, clear or remove it and dispose of it at the expense of and recover in a court of competent jurisdiction the amount of the expense from the owner or occupier to whom the notice is given.

8.3.4 Failure to comply with a notice under this clause shall be a breach of

the provisions of the Scheme. Risk Management considerations: The delegation process includes detailed practices on reporting, checking and cross checking, supported by peer review in an effort to ensure decisions taken are lawful, proper and consistent. Further, if a notice/direction is not complied with, it is referred to the City’s solicitors for legal action, ensuring that the process for issuing the direction/notice is lawful. Financial/Budget Implications: Costs will be incurred in the enforcement of the Scheme. These are unpredictable in terms of when enforcement action is required and the costs associated with the required action, although timely action, as allowed by delegation, may improve the opportunities for resolution by negotiation. Policy implications: Not Applicable Regional Significance: Not Applicable Sustainability implications: Not Applicable Consultation: Consultation obligations and commitments are not affected by this change to the notice of delegation. COMMENT From time to time, it is brought to the City’s attention various matters that may not be occurring in accordance with the Scheme, including such issues as: • a structure has not been built in accordance with the conditions of planning approval; • that a development was constructed or is occurring that required planning approval but

was not obtained; • that a land use is being conducted that is not in conformity with the Scheme, or • a property is being kept in an untidy manner.


Such situations are a breach of the Scheme and where this requires the removal of a building or the ceasing of a land use, in accordance with clause 8.9 of the Scheme, a notice/direction can be issued. In situations where the City is aware of such a breach, officers endeavour to resolve the issue by writing to the owner and/or occupier requesting that the matter be brought into compliance or outline alternative options available to the party in order to resolve the issue. However, in some circumstances, where a party is not willing to remove a structure or bring it into compliance with the Scheme or cease the land use, there is no option other than to issue a notice to remove such a building or cease the land use. Currently, a report would have to be presented to Council to issue such a notice. It is proposed to delegate this power to the Director Planning and Community Development and Manager Approvals, Planning and Environmental Services. This will enable the City to deal with such matters in a more efficient and expeditious time frame and therefore respond in a timely manner to the resident who made the City aware of the matter. In regard to the notices, once a notice/direction is issued, the Town Planning & Development Act 1928 stipulates that a person who has been served a notice/direction may apply to the State Administrative Tribunal for a review and such rights exist for 28 days from the date of the notice/direction. Should it be determined to proceed with legal action (prosecute) under section 10AB of the Town Planning & Development Act, the City can do so without serving formal notice. It should be noted that if the direction/notice is not complied with and the matter then proceeds to legal action or if the City decides to prosecute without issue of a notice, in accordance with current procedures, the Chief Executive Officer would be required to authorise the appointment of solicitors to proceed to prosecution. It is proposed to liaise with solicitors in regard to the correct process for issuing the notice and prior to commencement of prosecution, legal advice will be sought in regard to the likely success of such a prosecution. This process will result in a more efficient and effective process for dealing with complaints raised by ratepayers/residents regarding matters of non compliance with the Scheme. Conclusion When Council adopted the revised town planning delegation notice in July 2005, it resolved to adopt the delegation notice and that it remain effective until 30 June 2007. It is proposed that the delegation notice, with the minor change as detailed in this report, also be adopted until 30 June 2007. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 Current delegation notice, with tracked changes. VOTING REQUIREMENTS Absolute Majority


MOVED Cmr Anderson, SECONDED Cmr Smith that Council ADOPTS the amended Town Planning Delegation as outlined in Attachment 1 to Report CJ283-12/05 and the amended delegation to remain effective until 30 June 2007. The Motion was Put and CARRIED BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY (5/0) Appendix 19 refers To access this attachment on electronic document, click here: Attach19brf061205.pdf Disclosure of Financial Interests Name/Position Cmr S Smith Item No/Subject CJ284-12/05 – Whitford Community Ratepayers & Recreation

Association Community Bus Nature of interest Financial Extent of Interest Cmr Smith owns property in the Whitfords area.

CJ284 - 12/05 WHITFORD COMMUNITY RATEPAYERS &

RECREATION ASSOCIATION COMMUNITY BUS – [07310]

WARD: Whitfords RESPONSIBLE Mr Clayton Higham DIRECTOR: Planning and Community Development CJ051206_BRF.DOC:ITEM 22 PURPOSE To seek approval for the City to support the replacement of the Whitford Community Ratepayers & Recreation Association's Community Bus and continue to provide the ongoing maintenance for a fixed period of three (3) years. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 1980, an agreement was established between the then Shire of Wanneroo, the Whitford Community Ratepayers & Recreation Association and North Whitfords Estates, Land and Property Developers, whereby the Shire was to purchase a community bus with finance supplied by North Whitfords Estates. They contributed $15,000 to purchase the bus, with Council paying to licence, insure and service the bus. In 1995, Council purchased a replacement community bus on behalf of the Association. This resulted in a substantial savings for the Association, as Council was able to purchase the bus without paying the 22.5% motor vehicle sales tax. In 1996, the 22.5% motor vehicle sales tax exemption that applied to Local Government ended and as a result, the City is no longer able to offer this savings advantage to the Association for the purchase of a replacement community bus.



Since the initial bus was purchased, Council has contributed approximately $2,727 per annum toward the maintenance, licensing and insurance costs of the Whitford Community Ratepayers & Recreation Association community bus. The Whitford Community Ratepayers & Recreation Association is responsible for the management and bookings of the bus, however the bus remains on the City of Joondalup’s asset register. In April 2005, the Whitford Community Ratepayers & Recreation Association wrote to Council, requesting assistance to purchase a new community bus. This has provided the City of Joondalup with an opportunity to assess its options in the support it provides to the Association regarding the community bus. Council has no other arrangements of this nature with community or sporting groups. It is recommended that Council: 1 AGREES to continue to support for the Whitford Community Ratepayers & Recreation

Association by agreeing to maintain the community bus for a fixed period not exceeding three (3) years, concluding on 30 June 2009;

2 AGREES to list for consideration an amount of $6,700 in the 2006/2007 Draft Budget

as a contribution to the Whitford Community Ratepayers & Recreation Association to assist in meeting the cost of stamp duty in the purchase of the replacement community bus;

3 ADVISES the Whitford Community Ratepayers & Recreation Association that;

(a) subject to the Council agreeing to adopting the funding in (2) above, a contribution will be made to the Whitford Community Ratepayers & Recreation Association to assist in meeting the cost of stamp duty in the purchase of the replacement community bus;

(b) the Association will be responsible for the purchase of the replacement bus; (c) the City will continue to provide the ongoing maintenance for the community bus

(including meeting the costs of licensing and insurance) for a fixed period of three (3) years until the end of the 2008/2009 financial year, after which time the Association will be responsible for all costs involved in operating and maintaining the vehicle;

4 REMOVE the Whitford Community Ratepayers & Recreation Association Community

Bus from the City’s asset register. BACKGROUND The Whitford Community Ratepayers & Recreation Association consists of nominated members from organised groups from the Whitford, Lakeside and South Coastal wards in the City of Joondalup. The Association currently has representation from sporting clubs, scout groups, Independent Retirees Association, childcare and after school care operators and local school groups. The Association has existed for almost 30 years and has assisted community groups in providing recreational and leisure activities to their members and local ratepayers. The Whitfords Community Bus was first proposed in 1979 by the Whitford Community Ratepayers & Recreation Association as a service to the community. The Association wrote to the then Shire of Wanneroo requesting assistance in purchasing a bus and financial


contributions towards its operating and maintenance costs. An agreement was established between the Shire of Wanneroo, the Whitford Community Ratepayers & Recreation Association and North Whitfords Estates, Land and Property Developers. North Whitfords Estates agreed to contribute $15,000 to purchase the bus, with the City of Wanneroo paying to initially licence, insure and service the bus. In 1995, the City of Wanneroo utilised the government agency CAMS (Contract and Management Services) to buy a replacement bus on behalf of the Whitford Community Ratepayers & Recreation Association. Investigations were conducted at the time to ascertain if the Association itself was eligible to utilise the CAMS discount. Under the existing guidelines, the Whitford Community Ratepayers & Recreation Association was ineligible and therefore relied on the City of Wanneroo to arrange the purchase via the fleet purchase tendering process. The City of Wanneroo was able to purchase the bus without paying the 22.5% sales tax, which resulted in substantial savings for the Association. The current Toyota 18 seat Coaster bus was purchased and the Whitford Community Ratepayers & Recreation Association were invoiced and paid approximately $35,000 being the changeover cost of the vehicle. There was no cost to the City of Wanneroo for the purchase of the bus. The Whitford Community Ratepayers & Recreation Association has responsibility for the management and bookings of the community bus. The Association is responsible for determining the fees and charges and these are set without endorsement from Council. All revenue generated is retained by the Whitford Community Ratepayers & Recreation Association and used to cover future purchases and operating costs. The bus is available for hire to any group affiliated to the Association with non-member groups able to join the Association for a 12-month period at a cost of $20. The current members of the Association are: • Padbury Adventurer Guides • 1st Padbury Scout Group • Association of Independent Retirees • Padbury Education and Child Care • Whitfords Junior Football Club • Whitfords Amateur Football Club • Whitfords Junior Cricket Club • Whitfords & District Senior Cricket Club • Whitfords Senior Citizens • Woodvale Senior High School • Wider Vision • After School Care The hire costs for the community bus are: • Bond (day hire) $20 • Bond (overnight hire) $50 • Hire Rate (< 4 hrs) $25 • Hire Rate (> 4 hrs) $50 • Kilometre Rate 35c per km (NB: The bus has a full tank of fuel on pick up and must be returned with a full tank).


The community bus is stored at Fleur Fraeme Pavilion in Padbury and availability for the bus is advertised to all members of the Whitford Community Ratepayers & Recreation Association. The garage in which the bus is housed is and will remain an asset of the City. The bus is used by various Association members, with frequency of use depending on the activities of the clubs or groups. Regular users include: • Padbury Education and Child Care and After School Care – every school day, and 2-3

times per week during the school holidays. • 1st Padbury Scout Group – 1-2 times per month, and occasionally on the weekends for

camps. Seasonal users include: • Sporting clubs – occasionally for away games and social outings. • Woodvale Senior High School – 2-3 times per year for school camps (approximately 4-5

days), and other various occasions. Annual users include: • Sorrento Bowling Club – once per year. • Church Group – once per year. The bus provides a valuable service to local users and the current booking arrangements appear to be operating efficiently with a medium usage level. The bus remains an asset of Council and currently costs approximately $2,727 per annum. The following is a breakdown of costs over a two-year period (from 1 July 2003 to present);

Insurance $1,200 Parts/Repairs $1,579 Batteries $ 200 Licence $ 515 Tyres $1,460 Service $ 500 Total Cost $5,454

In April 2005, the Whitford Community Ratepayers & Recreation Association wrote to Council requesting that the City of Joondalup begin the processes required to facilitate the replacement of the current 1995 Toyota Coaster bus. The Whitford Community Ratepayers & Recreation Association has stated that they are currently in a financial position to trade in the bus and can afford the changeover costs of approximately $80,000. The current 1995 Toyota Coaster bus has been independently valued at $24,000. In 1996, the 22.5% motor vehicle sales tax exemption that applied to Local Government ended and as a result, the City can no longer offer this saving to the Association for the purchase of the new bus. The Whitford Community Ratepayers & Recreation Association has the opportunity to purchase a new bus at a competitive price, with motor vehicle dealers willing to consider the community nature of a purchase when negotiating the price. This arrangement may involve a discount on the purchase price being offered, in exchange for the opportunity for advertising exposure.


Consultation with motor vehicle dealers has indicated that they would consider giving the Whitford Community Ratepayers & Recreation Association State Government pricing for the new bus. A new Toyota 20 seater 4.1 litre turbo diesel Coaster, with manual transmission, air-conditioning and a non-automatic door (base model) will cost: City of Joondalup Whitfords Recreation

Association Purchase Price $84,543.00 $84,600.00 GST $8,454.30 $8,460.00 Vehicle Registration $385.00 $1,000.00 Stamp Duty - $6,700.00 Total Cost $93,382.30 $100,760.00 Total Cost (Less GST) $84,928.00 $100,760.00

The City of Joondalup is not required to pay stamp duty, pays a reduced price for registration of the vehicle and can claim back the GST paid on the purchase of the bus. The Whitford Community Ratepayers & Recreation Association is not GST registered, which further increases the cost difference between the City of Joondalup’s buying price and the Association’s buying price. If the Whitford Community Ratepayers & Recreation Association remains not registered for GST, the total cost difference in purchasing the replacement bus is $15,832. For the Whitford Community Ratepayers & Recreation Association to register for GST, they are required to have a constitution and an ABN number. Once registered, the Association will need to submit quarterly activity statements to the Australian Taxation Office and can claim input tax credits. The community bus has only done approximately 104,000 kilometres, and has been regularly maintained for the period of its life. DETAILS As a result of the Whitford Community Ratepayers & Recreation Association’s request for assistance to purchase a new community bus, the City of Joondalup has an opportunity to assess its options in the support it provides to the Association regarding the community bus. Issues and options considered: Four (4) alternatives exist for the City of Joondalup to consider: A Continue with current arrangements. The issues concerned with this option include: • The Australian Taxation Office permits the City to purchase the community bus on behalf

of the Association, provided ownership of the vehicle remains with the City on its asset register;

• The City does not have any control over how the bus is managed; • The City will continue to meet the costs of the insurance, licence and maintenance for

the community bus. Funds are allocated from the fleet maintenance budget and total approximately $2,727 per annum;


• The City can claim back the 10% GST paid on the purchase price of the bus saving the Association $8,454.30;

• The City does not pay stamp duty on the purchase of the bus saving the Association

$6,700; • The City receives a discount of $615 on the bus’ vehicle registration; and • No other arrangements of this nature exist with sporting or community groups operating

within the City of Joondalup. B Transfer the vehicle to the Whitford Community Ratepayers & Recreation

Association. The issues concerned with this option include: • The Association will be responsible for the purchase of the bus; • The Association will be responsible for the licensing, insurance and maintenance costs

relating to the community bus, saving the City approximately $2,727 per annum; • The City will no longer be responsible for a vehicle that is on its asset register of which it

has no management control; • The community bus will be removed from the City’s asset register; • The City will need to provide ongoing permission for the Association to garage the bus at

Fleur Fraeme Pavilion in Padbury; • The Whitford Community Ratepayers & Recreation Association can become GST

registered, enabling it to claim back $8,460.00 in input tax credits on the purchase price of the bus; and

• The Association has the opportunity to obtain a discount on the purchase price of the

new bus due to the community nature of the service it provides and/or in exchange for offering advertising space on the side of the bus.

C Transfer the vehicle to the Whitford Community Ratepayers & Recreation

Association, with the City facilitating the handover of the bus through the provision of a donation to meet the stamp duty costs incurred in purchasing the new bus.

The issues concerned with this option include: • All issues listed in Option B; • The City will meet the costs of the stamp duty ($6,700.00) incurred when purchasing the

new bus and facilitate the transition of the ownership to the Whitford Community Ratepayers & Recreation Association;

• The $6,700.00 will be allocated for consideration in the 2006/2007 Draft Budget; and • The Association will be advised that the City's contribution towards purchasing the

replacement bus will be subject to the funds being approved in the 2006/2007 budget.


D Transfer the existing vehicle to the Whitford Community Ratepayers &

Recreation Association, with the City to;

1 Facilitate the handover of the bus through the provision of a donation to meet the stamp duty costs incurred in purchasing the new bus; and

2 Continue to maintain the community bus (including meeting the costs of licencing

and insurance) until the end of the 2008/2009 financial year, after which the Association will be responsible for all ongoing costs.

The issues concerned with this option include: • All issues listed in Option B; • The City will meet the costs of the stamp duty ($6,700.00) incurred when purchasing the

new bus and facilitate the transition of the ownership to the Whitford Community Ratepayers & Recreation Association;

• The $6,700.00 will be allocated for consideration in the 2006/2007 Draft Budget; and • The Association will be advised that the City's contribution towards purchasing the

replacement bus will be subject to the funds being approved in the 2006/2007 budget. Link to Strategic Plan: The service provided by the community bus links to the following outcome in the City's Strategic Plan. Outcome: The City of Joondalup provides social opportunities that meet community needs. Objectives: 1.3 To continue to provide services that meet the changing needs of the

diverse and growing community. Strategies: 1.3.1 Provide leisure and recreational activities aligned to community

expectations, incorporating innovative opportunities for today’s environment.

1.3.3 Provide support, information and resources. However, as the City does not manage any aspects of the bus' operations, this link is more philosophical. Legislation – Statutory Provisions: Not Applicable Risk Management Considerations: Council needs to establish direction regarding the City’s future responsibilities in the provision of financial assistance or support to community groups such as the Whitford Community Ratepayers & Recreation Association for its Community Bus. There is potential for further requests from other sport and recreation associations and community groups wishing to obtain the specific services of a community bus, to approach the City for financial assistance. This decision will provide a precedent to manage future requests of a similar nature.


Financial/Budget Implications: If the recommendation contained within the Report is accepted: • The City will be required to allocate $6,700 for consideration in the 2006/2007 Draft

Budget as a contribution to the Whitford Community Ratepayers & Recreation Association to meet the costs of the stamp duty incurred in purchasing the new community bus;

• The City will advise the Whitford Community Ratepayers & Recreation Association that

this is a one-off contribution that will not be made available when the Association replaces the bus in the future;

• The City will continue to provide the ongoing maintenance for the community bus

(including meeting the costs of licencing and insurance) for a fixed period of three (3) years until the end of the 2008/2009 financial year, after which time the Association will be responsible for all ongoing costs; and

• The City will remove the Whitford Community Ratepayers & Recreation Association

Community Bus from the City’s asset register. Policy Implications: The City does not have a specific policy regarding the purchase of assets on behalf of community groups. The establishment of a precedent with regard to this particular request will assist with all future approaches to the City of a similar nature. Regional Significance: Not Applicable Sustainability Implications: While the community bus is on the City’s asset register, it is not an appreciating asset, nor a direct service provided by the City. Ongoing costs associated with licensing, insurance and maintenance of the bus need to be considered in light of the social benefit to the community and the ability of the Whitford Community Ratepayers & Recreation Association to continue with its services. Consultation: The City of Joondalup has a long-term relationship with the Whitford Community Ratepayers & Recreation Association in all aspects of the provision and replacement of the bus. The Association has been consulted with regards to the report being presented to Council, and informed that the City is seeking a decision on its future involvement in the replacement and provision of maintenance for the community bus. COMMENT The Whitford Community Ratepayers & Recreation Association’s community bus provides a valuable service to local users in the Whitfords area and is available for hire by other groups within the City of Joondalup. The current booking arrangements appear to be operating efficiently with a medium usage level.


It is recommended that Council pursue Option D, transferring the existing vehicle to the Whitford Community Ratepayers & Recreation Association, with the City allocating $6,700 for consideration in the 2006/2007 Draft Budget as a contribution to meet the stamp duty costs incurred in purchasing the new bus. This contribution would be subject to the funds being approved in the 2006/2007 budget and may delay the Association's replacement of the bus. The City will continue to maintain the community bus (including meeting the costs of licencing and maintenance) until the end of the 2008/2009 financial year, after which the Association will be responsible for all ongoing costs. In continuing with this arrangement for a further three (3) years, the City is enabling the Association time to budget for the necessary funds required to meet the vehicle's maintenance costs in the future. After this period has expired, the City will save approximately $2,727 per annum on the maintenance, insurance and licensing costs. In addition, the City will no longer be responsible for a vehicle that is not on its asset register and of which it has no management control. The Whitford Community Ratepayers & Recreation Association has the opportunity to obtain a discount on the purchase price of the new bus due to the community nature of the service it provides and/or in exchange for offering advertising space on the side of the bus. The City should encourage the Association to negotiate with the motor vehicle dealer to obtain this discount. If the Association becomes GST registered, the cost difference between the purchase price for the City and the purchase price for the Association will be negligible. The City has an ongoing relationship with the Whitford Community Ratepayers & Recreation Association regarding the provision and maintenance of the community bus. Given this relationship, the City has a responsibility to provide a degree of support to the Association in the purchase of the new community bus. ATTACHMENTS Nil VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION: That Council: 1 AGREES to continue to support for the Whitford Community Ratepayers & Recreation

Association by agreeing to maintain the community bus for a fixed period not exceeding three (3) years, concluding on 30 June 2009;

2 AGREES to list for consideration an amount of $6,700 in the 2006/2007 Draft Budget

as a contribution to the Whitford Community Ratepayers & Recreation Association to assist in meeting the cost of stamp duty in the purchase of the replacement community bus;

3 ADVISES the Whitford Community Ratepayers & Recreation Association that:

(a) subject to the Council agreeing to adopting the funding in (2) above, a contribution will be made to the Whitford Community Ratepayers & Recreation Association to assist in meeting the cost of stamp duty in the purchase of the replacement community bus;


(b) the Association will be responsible for the purchase of the replacement bus; (c) the City will continue to provide the ongoing maintenance for the community

bus (including meeting the costs of licensing and insurance) for a fixed period of three (3) years until the end of the 2008/2009 financial year, after which time the Association will be responsible for all costs involved in operating and maintaining the vehicle;

4 REMOVES the Whitford Community Ratepayers & Recreation Association Community

Bus from the City’s asset register. MOVED Cmr Smith, SECONDED Cmr Fox that consideration of this Item be DEFERRED with a request to the officers to seek to enter into an arrangement with the Whitford Community Ratepayers & Recreation Association that an all up donation is made to the Association, representing:

the existing bus; an amount equal to three (3) years maintenance; and an amount equal to the stamp duty.

Discussion ensued. The Motion was Put and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (5/0) CJ285 - 12/05 MONTHLY TOWN PLANNING DELEGATED

AUTHORITY REPORT – OCTOBER 2005 – [07032] WARD: All RESPONSIBLE Mr Clayton Higham DIRECTOR: Director Planning and Community Development CJ051206_BRF.DOC:ITEM 23 PURPOSE To provide an explanation of the town planning delegated authority report included in this agenda and to submit items of Delegated Authority to Council for noting. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The provisions of clause 8.6 of the text to the District Planning Scheme No 2 allows Council to delegate all or some of its development control powers to those persons or committees identified in Schedule 6 of the Scheme text. The purpose of delegation of certain powers by Council to staff is to facilitate timely processing of development applications and subdivision applications. The framework for the delegation of those powers is set out in resolutions adopted by Council and is reviewed generally on a yearly basis. All decisions made by staff, acting under delegated authority as permitted under the delegation notice, are reported to Council on a monthly basis.


The normal monthly report identifies the major development applications that have been determined under delegated authority. A second approval process exists which deals with requests for Council to exercise its discretion to vary an acceptable standard of the Residential Design Codes for a single house. This process is referred to as “R-Codes variation approval for single houses” (this was introduced by the 2002 R-Codes). This report provides a list of the development applications determined by those staff members with delegated authority powers during October 2005 (see Attachment 1) and now includes the codes variations referred to above. The number of development applications determined for October 2005 under delegated authority and those applications dealt with as an “R-code variations for single houses” for the same period are shown below:

Approvals Determined Under Delegated Authority – Month of October 2005

Type of Approval

Number Value ($)

Development Applications 107 10,448,616, R-Code variations (Single Houses) 69 1,379,688

Total 176 11,828,304 In addition, there were 4 development applications determined by Council during this month at a value of $5,340,000. The number of development applications received in October 2005 was 93. This figure does not include any applications that may become the subject of the R-Code variation process. BACKGROUND

Suburb/Location: All Applicant: Various – see attachment Owner: Various – see attachment Zoning: DPS: Various MRS: Not applicable

The District Planning Scheme No 2 requires that delegation be reviewed annually, unless a greater or lesser period is specified by Council. The Joint Commissioners, at their meeting of 19 July 2005 considered and adopted the most recent Town Planning Delegation. DETAILS Issues and options considered: Not Applicable Link to Strategic Plan: The strategic plan includes a strategy to provide quality value-adding services with an outcome to provide efficient and effective service delivery. The use of a delegation notice allows staff to efficiently deal with many simple applications that have been received and allows the elected members to focus on strategic business direction for the Council, rather than day-to-day operational and statutory responsibilities.


City development is a key focus area of the City’s Strategic Plan. The proposals considered by staff acting under delegated authority relate closely to the objectives of providing for a growing and dynamic community. The Council adopted the Delegation of Authority instrument after detailed consideration, in accordance with the Strategic Plan objective of providing a sustainable and accountable business. The delegation is necessary due to the large volume of development applications received for development within the City. It is a key instrument in providing a range of services that are proactive, innovative and using best practice to meet organisational and community needs. This is also a strategy of the City’s Strategic Plan. Legislation – Statutory Provisions: Clause 8.6 of the District Planning Scheme No 2 permits development control functions to be delegated to persons or Committees. Risk Management considerations: The delegation process includes detailed practices on reporting, checking and cross checking, supported by peer review in an effort to ensure decisions taken are lawful, proper and consistent. Financial/Budget Implications: Not Applicable Policy Implications: Not Applicable Regional Significance: Not Applicable Sustainability Implications: Not Applicable Consultation: Consultation may be required by the provisions of the Residential Design Codes 2002, any relevant Town Planning Scheme Policy and/or the District Planning Scheme. Of the 107 applications determined, during the report summary period, consultation was undertaken for 25 of those applications. All applications for an R-codes variation require the written support of the affected adjoining property owner before the application is submitted for determination by the Coordinator Planning Approvals. Should the R-codes variation consultation process result in an objection being received, then the matter is referred to the Director Planning and Community Development or the Manager, Approvals, Planning and Environmental Services, as set out in the notice of delegation.


COMMENT Large local governments utilise levels of delegated authority as a basic business requirement in relation to Town Planning functions. The process allows determination times to be reasonably well accepted and also facilitates consistent decision-making in rudimentary development control matters. The process also allows the elected members to focus on strategic business direction for the Council, rather than day-to-day operational and statutory responsibilities. Without such a mechanism, it would be exceptionally difficult for the Council to be properly informed to make decisions itself, regarding approximately 70-110 planning applications per month. All proposals determined under delegated authority are assessed, checked, reported and crosschecked in accordance with relevant standards and codes. The delegation notice itself outlines specific delegations to respective levels and the limits to those levels of determination. The delegation allows the Director Planning & Community Development and Manager Approvals, Planning & Environmental Services to implement aspects of the District Planning Scheme No 2 that relate to the determination of certain types of development applications, and to process subdivision applications. The Coordinator Planning Approvals and Senior Planning Officers (Planning Approvals) have authority to approve development applications that are in compliance with the District Planning Scheme No 2 or with minor variations to the applicable standard. In addition to the major development applications dealt with under delegated authority, the Residential Design Codes and the District Planning Scheme provisions require an applicant to seek Council’s written approval to exercise its discretion to vary an Acceptable Standard of the Residential Design Codes for a development that relates to a single house or additions to a single house, such as patios, outbuildings, carports, garages, retaining walls, etc. As this type of written approval requires an exercise of discretion, they are required to be reported to Council in accordance with the notice of delegation. Where a development does not require planning approval (complying development), the application is dealt with as a building licence only. Should a building licence application be received and it is identified that an R-Codes variation is required, then the applicant will be requested to seek the relevant approval. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 October 2005 Approvals – Development Applications Attachment 2 October 2005 Approvals – R-Code variations for Single House VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority MOVED Cmr Fox, SECONDED Cmr Clough that Council NOTES the determinations made under Delegated Authority in relation to the applications described in Report CJ285-12/05 for the month of October 2005. The Motion was Put and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (5/0) Appendix 21 refers To access this attachment on electronic document, click here: Attach21brf061205.pdf



CJ286 - 12/05 MINUTES OF THE SENIORS INTERESTS ADVISORY

COMMITTEE MEETINGS HELD 3 AUGUST 2005 AND 2 NOVEMBER 2005 – [55511]

WARD: All RESPONSIBLE Mr Clayton Higham DIRECTOR: Planning and Community Development CJ051206_BRF.DOC:ITEM 24 PURPOSE To note the confirmed minutes of the Seniors Interests Advisory Committee meeting held Wednesday 3 August 2005 and the unconfirmed minutes of the Seniors Interests Advisory Committee meeting held 2 November 2005. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A meeting of the Seniors Interests Advisory Committee was held on Wednesday 3 August 2005 and on Wednesday 2 November 2005. The confirmed minutes of the meeting held on 3 August 2005 and the unconfirmed minutes of the meeting held on 2 November 2005 are submitted for noting by Council. It is recommended that Council NOTES: 1 the confirmed Minutes of the Seniors Interests Advisory Committee Meeting held on

Wednesday 3 August 2005 forming Attachment 1 to Report CJ286-12/05; 2 the unconfirmed Minutes of the Seniors Interests Advisory Committee Meeting held

on Wednesday 2 November 2005 forming Attachment 2 to Report CJ286-12/05. BACKGROUND The Seniors Interests Advisory Committee was instigated as a result of a Council resolution to elect an Occasional Seniors advisory Committee on 25 September 2001, which was changed to the Strategic Advisory Committee – Seniors Interests at the Council meeting of 9 October 2001. Initial membership was established at the Council meeting of 18 December 2001. At its meeting of 3 September 2002, Council resolved to remove ”Strategic Advisory” from all Council Committees and the committee became the Seniors Interests Advisory Committee. The Committee was established because Council identified the benefit of receiving advice on matters to do with seniors from residents of the City of Joondalup, the ageing population and the need for community input into the Seniors Plan. As stated in the Terms of Reference, the objective of the Committee is to: 3.1 Provide advice to Council to ensure that the concerns of seniors are adequately represented in the City planning processes and the strategic directions being developed for older people across the City.


The current Committee nominated for membership after the previous Committee came to the end of their tenure as per the Terms of Reference. The terms of Reference stated that the term for the current members of the Seniors Interests Advisory Committee would conclude at the end of May 2005. The Appointment of Seniors Interests Advisory Committee Report CJ 152 – 07/05 was endorsed by Council at its meeting of 19 July 2005. The current committee met for the first time on 3 August 2005. DETAILS Issues and options considered: On 3 August 2005 Seniors Interests Advisory Committee members attended their first meeting as the newly endorsed Committee. Conforming to the Local Government Act 1995 (section 5.12, Schedule 2.3), the Chief Executive Officer acting as presiding officer, sought and received nominations for the positions of Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson. Sharleen Mann and Val O’Toole were elected to the positions of Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson respectively. The Committee considered reports on:

• The Committee’s Terms of Reference • Seniors Information Expo • Live Life Festival • Living Now: A Seminar for Seniors

As per terms of Reference minimum requirements, the Committee resolved to meet quarterly. A workshop held outside of the meeting agenda, enabled committee members to begin the process of identifying issues to guide the future direction and focus of the committee. On 2 November 2005, following on from the workshop held on 3 August 2005, members continued discussion, focussing on strengths and gaps of the Seniors Plan 2004 -2008 in the context of future planning and strategic direction of the Seniors Interests Advisory Committee. The Committee considered reports on:

• Future planning and strategic direction of the Committee. • The evaluation and review of the Directory for Seniors and People With Disabilities. • The Strategic Plan 2005-2008 of the Alliance for the Prevention of Elder Abuse:

Western Australia (APEA:WA) and the City’s Prevention of Elder Abuse Network. • Seniors Week activities. • An Emergency Medical Information booklet specifically for seniors.

The Committee discussed regularity of meetings and resolved that Committee meetings would be held two monthly rather than quarterly. The next meeting will be held on Wednesday 1 February 2006 and two monthly thereafter.


Link to Strategic Plan: The Seniors Interests Advisory Committee is linked to the Strategic Plan through the following objectives: 1.1 By developing, providing and promoting a diverse range of lifelong learning

opportunities. 1.2 By meeting the cultural needs and values of the community. 1.3 By continuing to provide services that meet changing needs of a diverse and growing

community. 1.4 By working with the community to enhance safety and security in a healthy

environment. Legislation – Statutory Provisions: The Seniors Interests Advisory Committee is an official Council Committee whose Terms of Reference are endorsed by Council. Risk Management considerations: Not Applicable Policy Implications: Not Applicable Regional Significance: The Seniors Interests Advisory Committee is a locally focussed working group, established by Council to represent and advocate for the needs of seniors within the City of Joondalup. Although there may be some issues and concerns unique for seniors within the City, it is probable that these issues and concerns may be similar for many seniors throughout the state. Therefore, whilst focussing and operating from a local perspective, the Committee has and does consider a range of universal issues that impact upon seniors at regional and state levels. Sustainability Implications: The Seniors Interests Advisory Committee enables seniors the opportunity to actively participate and provide input into the development and maintenance of a healthy and equitable community that considers their needs. Consultation: Not Applicable COMMENT The membership of the Seniors Interests Advisory Committee, was endorsed by Council on 19 July 2005. The Committee has met twice, electing a Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson, familiarising itself with the Terms of Reference and the Seniors Plan 2004 –2008 and participating in a workshop to identify issues to guide the future direction of the Committee. Members have been informed of past achievements of the Committee, have discussed and determined the regularity of committee meetings, which after a trial of meeting


quarterly, resolved to meet two-monthly. Additionally, members have received information on and provided input into the Directory for Seniors and People with Disabilities. Information has been provided to the Committee on a range of issues including Elder Abuse and Seniors Week activities. The Committee will continue to be informed about issues relating to seniors, enabling members to continue to provide advice and recommendations to Council, ensuring that seniors concerns are adequately represented in the City’s planning processes and strategic directions being developed for older people across the City. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 Minutes of the Seniors Interests Advisory Committee meeting held on 3

August 2005. Attachment 2 Minutes of the Seniors Interests Advisory Committee meeting held on 2

November 2005. VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority MOVED Cmr Smith, SECONDED Cmr Fox that Council NOTES the: 1 confirmed Minutes of the Seniors Interests Advisory Committee Meeting held

on Wednesday 3 August 2005 forming Attachment 1 to Report CJ286-12/05; 2 unconfirmed Minutes of the Seniors Interests Advisory Committee Meeting held

on Wednesday 2 November 2005 forming Attachment 2 to Report CJ286-12/05. Cmr Smith requested that comments be conveyed to the Committee to the effect that it is pleasing to see the Committee has commenced well, taking a very strategic approach to the work being undertaken. Commissioner Paterson thanked Mr Allyn Bryant for attending Council meetings, representing seniors interests. The Motion was Put and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (5/0) Appendix 22 refers To access this attachment on electronic document, click here: Attach22brf061205.pdf



Name/Position Cmr S Smith Item No/Subject CJ287-12/05 - Review of Discussion Paper on New Public Health

Act Nature of interest Interest that may affect impartiality Extent of Interest Cmr Smith undertakes contract work for WALGA.

CJ287 - 12/05 REVIEW OF DISCUSSION PAPER ON NEW PUBLIC

HEALTH ACT – [73512] WARD: All RESPONSIBLE Mr Clayton Higham DIRECTOR: Planning and Community Development CJ051206_BRF.DOC:ITEM 25 PURPOSE This report outlines the approach, principles and broad contents of a proposed new Public Health Act as outlined in a recently released discussion paper, and requests that Council endorse the contents of the report as its guiding principles and strategies in response to a proposed New Public Health Act. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Health Act 1911 is 94 years old. Constructed in a time when the cause of infectious disease was not clearly understood, it was initially based on sanitation issues of the early 20th century. As it stands the current Act is no longer capable of offering effective support for public health programmes in Western Australia and does not provide adequate responses to new and emerging environmental health problems or to new threats from public health emergencies, possible epidemics (e.g. SARS, Avian flu) or bio terrorism. It cannot be realistically disputed that it is not time for a major review of the Act and its approach. Many have agitated for reform for a great number of years. People value their individual and community health needs above most other priorities. There are many recent and past examples of issues where the community have demanded more effective preventative and protective strategies from governments and their departments (state and local). Examples include the waste control fire in Bellevue, Brookdale Waste Disposal and Treatment facility and the South Beach redevelopment. In some cases it could be argued that the legislative arrangements were found to be unresponsive or ineffective which resulted in adverse risks to public health and subsequent community outcry and backlash. The community needs and demands effective legislation that adequately protects public health and safety. Local government needs effective and flexible mechanisms to undertake its role and respond to community needs. Local government as the tier of government closest to the community is a key partner and protector of public health of the community. The existing Act does not meet these needs.


A discussion paper titled ‘A New Public Health Act for Western Australia,” together with a Précis and a Submission Form was released for public comment in June 2005. Initially the period for comment was to end on 30 September but has now been extended to 30 November 2005. This paper posed 149 technical questions on which are being dealt with at an Officer level. The Discussion Paper advocates the development of a new Public Health Act that: • Is expanded in scope in order to address current, emerging and future health issues • Is administered using a risk based approach rather than “control and command” • Is administered in a proactive way rather than reactively • Is able to administer in true partnership with other Acts and agencies • Supports sustainability principles • Is compatible with approaches being taken in other States and Territories There are two fundamental changes proposed. 1 It is proposed to extend the ambit of a new Act, to be more in keeping with the World

Health Organisation (WHO) definition of health, which hinges on a state of physical, mental and social well being, not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.

2 It is proposed to take a risk based approach to administration of the Act, based on a

statutory duty for “all persons to conduct their activities in a way that does not cause risks to the health of others”.

Main elements of the model are: • A general duty to protect public health • Orders to enforce the general duty • Policies and guidelines spelling out compliance with duty • An offence of causing ‘risk to health’ It is proposed that a new Health Act would reflect modern approaches by incorporating a set of objects that will establish the extent and limits of public health responsibilities. The functions of the Executive Director, Public Health (EDPH) are also canvassed, strengthening the EDPH’s role to conduct inquiries into the health impact of activities. The role of local government and the relationship between the Health Department and local governments, a long-standing issue for the administration of public health across Australia, is also raised for discussion. The health of the environment and the health of humans who live in the environment are integrally linked, with sustainability as the common goal. Future public health problems will be bound together with future environmental problems. The issues of global warming and the hazards of living on a planet that cannot sustain our lifestyles will rival all of the public health problems of earlier generations. All governments need to have a strong commitment to breaking down the barriers between public health and environmental protection and ensuring this is reflected in operational and administrative arrangements. The discussion paper does highlight this need however falls short on defining how environment and health will link. It must be strongly emphasised in the City’s response on the discussion paper that the ability for the proposed Act to ensure improved Health outcomes for the community is severely compromised given the current


dictomy of public health and environmental protection, in both legislation, administrative arrangements and operational links between the two areas. The link between Public Health and Environmental Protection must be strongly emphasised in both government practice and decision making and the associated supporting framework of legislation & administrative arrangements. It is recommended that Council endorse the content of this report as its guiding principles and strategy in relation to the proposed Public Health Act. BACKGROUND Public health legislation Western Australia’s current public health act was first passed in 1911 and has been extensively amended and added to over the subsequent years. The ‘core’ provisions necessary that relate to sanitation and communicable disease reflect the origins and the language of the 19th Century public health acts, and the Health Act 1911 (WA) does not have the capacity to provide modern approach to management of public health risks or the containment of disease. A Health Act provides the primary remedy for public health issues. In practice it is made up of two seemingly separate, though often inter-related areas – sanitation and the control of communicable disease. The first public health acts passed in Britain in the middle of the 19th century, focussed on the problems of the urban environment, on removing conditions such as overflowing drains, cesspits and accumulations of putrid waste that were offensive but, according to the understandings of the time, also dangerous to health. The first public health remedies were tailored to meet these kinds of problems and they are continued to be applied in the current legislation. The second area of concern for the early public health acts was the need to respond to disease, which involved provisions such as notification, the restraint of individuals and the ability to destroy property thought to be a source of infection. Wide powers were provided by these early acts and with them came the potential to abuse them or to use the powers most enthusiastically when foreigners or ‘outsiders’ were suspects. The Health Act 1911 first operated and still operates with a view of health that is now regarded as very narrow. By contrast the World Health Organisation offers a wide view of health encompassing ‘physical, mental and social wellbeing’ as well as the absence of disease or infirmity. This definition is now seen as standard. The challenge for public health legislation will be to apply these broad ideas within a coherent and workable legislative framework. The traditional model of public health legislation has been reactive. It focussed on existing problems and issues typically operated by complaint. The discussion paper recognises that existing legislation is inflexible, lacking the opportunities for shared goals and agreed outcomes not envisaged in a traditional ‘command and control’ approach, but more often a feature of newer models of legislation. In particular, the Paper canvasses options for a new legislative approach to public health that supports and augments contemporary public health practice. It envisages that new legislation might adopt some key ideas that are current in public health thinking and practice across Australia and New Zealand. Public Health administration The Health Acts across Australia also set in place an administration that established a central (state) and local government responsibility for public health administration that remains to this day. In most cases public health responsibility still lies with governments and the division of responsibility between local and state is an important issue and a third element of legislation. A new Health act must clarify and strengthen this relationship.


DETAILS The key aim of a new Health Act is in ensuring flexibility in dealing with risks to health, now and in the future. The following table shows the main differences between the current Act and the proposed Act. 1911 Health Act 2005 Health Act Causes Unsanitary conditions that cause disease Many threats to

health Approach Target the nuisances – prescribe/proscribe

activities General duty to protect public health – assess risk and respond accordingly

Roles States sets the rules Local Government enforces

State sets the framework Local Government sets own rules

Crown Crown not bound by the Act The Crown bound Fees A number of fees set by regulation under

the Health Act Opportunity for all fees to be set under the Local Government Act.

Enforcement Use of Regulations Use of policies, standards & Guidelines

Central philosophy – risk to health It is envisaged that a new health act should be driven by the central philosophy of minimising risk to the public’s health. The centrepiece of this approach is a proposed statutory duty incumbent on all persons to conduct their activities in a way that does not cause risks to the health of others. It is as follows – A person must not undertake any activity that may result in harm to health unless the person takes all reasonable and practical measures to eliminate the possibility of harm occurring. This duty replaces the current ‘nuisance’ provisions that have been in place since the inception of public health legislation and so embedded in its sanitary origins as to be unable to provide the versatility and breadth of operation necessary to ensure that new and emerging public health threats are properly dealt with. The discussion paper envisages the following elements could be in place to support a risk based approach to the regulation of public health: • A general duty to protect public health • Orders to enforce the general duty • Policies and guidelines spelling out compliance with the duty • An offence of ‘causing a risk to health’

Public health administration The discussion paper envisages that the current dual responsibility for public health in WA vested in local government and the state government will continue. The functions of the Executive Director, Public Health (EDPH) are also canvassed, strengthening the EDPH’s role to conduct inquiries into the health impact of activities.


The role of local government and the relationship between the Health Department and local governments, a long-standing issue for the administration of public health across Australia, is also raised for discussion. The discussion paper agrees that good public policy should require the crown to be bound by its legislation and argues that the tradition of exempting the Crown or its agencies from the operation of its legislation is no longer tenable. This means that new public health legislation will apply to indigenous communities previously excluded from its operation and will provide equal protection for all Australians. It is proposed that a new Public Health Act is an important statute in its own right. It will be the ‘umbrella of ideas and values’ under which other public health laws sit and to which they may be connected. By necessity the Act must make other links, alliances and connections with areas of legislation that impact significantly on the public’s health. Licensing Licensing or registration currently exists in the Health Act 1911 for a series of specific places, products and activities regulated under the Act. These include lodging houses, eating houses, offensive trades, pesticides and the manufacture of therapeutic substances. There is a case to allow for the option of licensing in a new Act, although the requirement to apply more generally to ‘any activity which is declared to present a health risk’ rather than in specific ways it apples at present. However since licensing or registration imposes some additional administrative burdens and costs on those premises required to be licensed, a need for licensing and a clear value flowing from it needs to be demonstrated. Local Laws Local laws, or laws specific to local government areas, are permitted under the Health Act 1911 and are regarded as part of the Act overall. The Local Government Act also provides powers to make Local Laws. Local laws allows a comprehensive body of public health controls within each local government area, and in practice, extensive sets of laws have been created. The discussion paper raises the issue as to what extent local governments should retain the power to create local laws under the new Act. It will be suggested in the City’s response to the discussion paper that a system for local governments to make local laws based on local issues or local needs is retained. Health Impact Assessment For most of the years that the Health Act 1911 has been in operation it provided environmental remedies as much as public health remedies. The problems of public health and the problems of the environment so often were synonymous. This remains true today: issues of land use planning and environmental pollution have public health dimensions. Public health concerns, environmental protection concerns and planning concerns cannot be separated. The assessment of new developments needs to take into account the risks that may be posed to persons exposed to the environmental effects of the development as much as those environmental effects themselves. Formal statutory decision making processes that do not occur within the confines of a public health framework but which have public health consequences must be considered in a review of the current Act.


The assessment of the pubic health impacts is an important component of current policy and the process of Health Impact Assessment (HIA) is well accepted and important. It should be supported by legislation, both within health and other regulatory arrangements, as environmental impact assessment is supported in planning or environmental legislation. The discussion paper poses the questions as to what extent can new Health legislation initiate and support the process of HIA and to what extent can HIA integrate into the general framework of planning and development assessment in WA. Control of Communicable disease The Health Act 1911 deals with communicable disease today in much the same way it did when the provisions were first introduced almost a century ago. A number of events in the past few years have raised the need for new directions and perspectives in the area of communicable disease. The deliberate spread of infections through bioterrorism, and outbreaks of SARS and bird flu are reminders of the potential of new epidemics that might require the use of wide scale and sweeping public health powers of the type used in earlier times. Given this, there is a need to complement current infectious disease controls (which are geared to individuals) with more sweeping powers. It must be recognised however, that all communicable disease controls, especially emergency powers, impact on individual rights. The need to be sensitive to such impacts and ensure that new legislation also provides the principles that guide the use of controls and which ensure that they are applied in a way that takes into account the rights of those who might be affected by them. Immunisation Western Australia does not have a consistent or modern approach to immunisation. Current legislation covers only a short list of diseases and conditions. The model for discussion is that a new Health Act should provide the power to make immunisation regulations or policy. Emergency powers and serious incidents This section argues that emergency powers provisions designed specifically to combat outbreaks of influenza and tuberculosis are not longer relevant to today’s issues which include disasters and the threat of bio terrorism. It suggests that certain elements of emergency powers provisions should be reconsidered and that there should also be a lesser power to deal with serious incidents not as dire as a public health emergency. Conclusion The discussion paper concludes with a brief section on transitional arrangements and provides a model framework for a new Act. Issues and options considered: State and Local Government undertake the management of public health. Changes to the Health Act will have significant implications for Local Government. New legislation provides an opportunity to address Local Government’s concerns with current legislation and to establish contemporary public health laws which meet community needs. The Western Australian Local Government Association is recommending cautious, in-principle support to the Department’s Discussion Paper and the new approach being proposed. The final position adopted by the Association will be informed through consultation with members and resolution by the Association State Council.


The City’s Officers will continue to be involved in the consultation and development phase of the new Act to ensure that the City’s needs in ensuring Local Government have more autonomy and flexibility to meet local Environmental Health issues and in ensuring the new Act will give Local Government scope to tackle public health issues without imposing unrealistic and un-resourced demands are communicated. Link to Strategic Plan: Aligns with the City’s Key Focus Areas of Community Well-being and Caring for the Environment and City Development Legislation – Statutory Provisions: Health Act 1911. Risk Management considerations: As it stands the current Act is no longer capable of offering effective support for public health programmes in Western Australia and does not provide adequate responses to new and emerging environmental health problems to new threats from public health emergencies, possible epidemics (e.g. SARS, Avian flu) or bio terrorism. The current Health Act is outdated and is often difficult to use for professionals charged with the responsibility for its administration and for those who must comply. WALGA, the Department of Health and the Australian Institute of Environmental Health have long advocated that is should be extensively reviewed. Given this, is has been under formal review in one-way or another for the last 20 years but this has not progressed beyond discussion. The need for a new Act is clear and the will to proceed is apparent. Financial/Budget Implications: The broadening of ideas about public health in particular its move from definable and confined sanitary context to a more general approach encompassing lifestyle diseases in the proposed statutory duty to safeguard public health, may lead to increased costs to local governments and the perception of increased costs in administration. While these costs remain unquantifiable, they can be to some extent gauged by the fact that the new Act will mostly continue the existing responsibilities for local government. It is believed that the new Public health Act must provide a mechanism for local government to recover the costs of its services to the community, and that the Act allows Local Government to establish fees (under section 6.16 and 6.17 of the Local Government Act 1995) not capped by regulation. Policy Implications: The Health Act 1911 has approximately 50 sets of regulations dealing with a range of particular issues. Most of these can be repealed and many tend to reflect the language and concerns of earlier times. More significantly, it is envisaged that many will be upgraded and converted into public health policies which will contain detailed provisions that might be required for specific areas if public health regulation.


Potentially Public Health policies will be key documents and the Act should spell out a process for their development, which would include public participation in commenting on drafts. In any case where a statutory process is prescribed, the opportunities for proper community involvement, and the need to develop policies in a timely way and the resources available will all be issues that must be taken account of. Regional Significance: A new Health Act will have statewide significance. Sustainability Implications: The health of the environment and the health of humans who live in the environment are integrally linked, with sustainability as the common goal. People form an integral part of the Earth’s ecosystem. Their health is fundamentally interlinked with the total environment. All available information indicates that it will not be possible to sustain the quality of life for human beings and all living species, without drastic changes in attitudes and behaviour at all levels with regard to the management and preservation of the environment. The long term sustainability of life in Western Australia is a prime public health issue. The consequences of an unsustainable environment will impact very adversely of humans through climate change and diminished opportunities. These will fundamentally be public health impacts. Future public health problems will be bound together with future environmental problems. The issues of global warming and the hazards of living on a planet that cannot sustain our lifestyles will rival all of the public health problems of earlier generations. A Health Act that offers a more general approach to recognising and responding to health problems and which is able to inject public health concerns into public policy and decision making (for example through health impact assessment) is more able to support and further sustainability than one which is locked in sanitary origins. Consultation: In June 2005 the Health Act Review discussion paper was released for consultation. The Discussion paper describes the way in which the current Health Act 1911 operates and its limitations in the prevention of disease and the promotion and protection of public health in the 21st Century. The paper also suggests options and approaches for a new Public Health Act for WA to best address the short falls. The discussion paper offers the opportunity for input, debate and general comment on the concepts, principles and approaches proposed in the development of a new Public Health Act for WA. The paper is also the basis for proposed key stakeholder engagement throughout the process of legislation development. The comments and input received will guide government policy in relation to the drafting of any future legislation. Consultation and advertising is the responsibility of the Department of Health, Western Australia.


WALGA also has had significant input into the reform agenda and has released a position paper as a response to the Department of Health’s Discussion Paper on a New Public Health Act for Western Australia. Feedback on the recommendations developed by the Association is currently being sought from Councils. A number of fundamental principles have guided the Association’s response including: • Reducing cost shifting from State to Local Government • Ensuring that any increase in the roles and responsibilities of Councils is

accompanied with appropriate revenue streams • Advocating for increased autonomy for Local Government • Seeking clarification of the roles and responsibilities of State and Local Government • Fostering regional co-operation between Local Governments • Strengthening Local Government’s ability to service their communities Health Legislative Review Reference Group The Association has established a Health Legislative Review Reference Group in partnership with the Local Government Manager’s Association. The Group is comprised of Elected Members, Chief Executive Officers and Environmental Health Managers. The Group is providing technical input into the Association’s position during the development of the Bill and the new Act. State Wide Consultative Workshops The Association, in conjunction with the Department of Health, has arranged a series of statewide consultative workshops to hear the views of Local Government on the Discussion Paper. Workshops are aimed at Elected Members, Chief Executive Officers, senior staff and environmental health professionals. Workshop have now been completed and responses currently being collated. Progress of the public health legislation reforms is planned according to the following timetable: Activity Start Finish Health Act Review discussion paper released June 05 August 05 Review comments, drafting instructions Public Health Bill to Cabinet August 05 October 05 Drafting Public Health Bill October 05 January 06 Consultation on draft Public Health Bill February 06 March 06 Final drafting of Public Health Bill April 06 May 06 Introduction to Parliament June 06 Public Health Act subsidiary instruments 2006 2007


This timetable is only indicative and clearly takes an optimistic view. The initial consultation period has already been extended for three months (November 2005) beyond the above stated completion time. The whole process is likely to take several years and transitional arrangements, particularly in relation to phasing out regulations and introducing mandatory policies becomes very important. It has been suggested the sensible approach will be to carry-over all appropriate regulations and local laws and progressively replace them with policies or guidelines as required. COMMENT Whilst the need for a new Health Act and the themes contained in the discussion paper are fully supported by City staff, reservations still remain as to the ability for the proposed Act to ensure improved Health outcomes for the community given the current dictomy of public health and environmental protection, in both legislation, administrative arrangements and operational links between the two areas. There are many recent examples of issues where the community have demanded more effective preventative and protective strategies from governments and their departments (state and local). Examples include the waste control fire in Belluvue, Brookdale Waste Disposal and Treatment facility and the South Beach redevelopment. In some cases it could be argued that the legislative arrangements were found to be unresponsive or ineffective which resulted in adverse risks to public health and subsequent community outcry and backlash. These examples are where Health and Environment jurisdictions overlap and highlight the pressing need to ensure that government practice and decision making must be strongly emphasised and the associated supporting framework of legislation, administration fully developed. The National Environmental Health Strategy released in 1999, states that Australia’s ability to predict and reduce environmental threats to health have been impeded by the fragmentation of management across government and key organisations. Different jurisdictions have differing operational approaches to environment & health, resulting in reduced awareness of existing activities, lack of coordinated actions and duplication of effort. The EnHealth strategy reports that the current intergovernmental agreement on the Environment (which sets out general principles of environmental impact assessment) emphasises that human health is an issue of importance in protecting the environment. Recent Policy developments in the United Kingdom show that in May 1993, the World Health Organisation formulated and endorsed a new global strategy for health and the environment. The WHO Commission on Health & the Environment have concluded that: “….if the future of the human race is to be safeguarded, its manner of dealing with the environment must change dramatically…and…if the human race continues to ignore this fact its improved health and wellbeing will not be an attainable goal” (Our planet, our health: Report of the EHO commission on health and the environment. Geneva WHO: 1992) Environmental Health Officers, as trained and qualified professionals, administer public health legislation across Australia, with qualifications being prescribed in the current Act. However, local governments EHOs operate under the umbrella of the Department of Health for much of their environmental health duties, but also under the Department of Environment for issues relating to pollution discharges, noise enforcement, waste management, contaminated sites, and hazardous materials & substances support. These officers seek


guidance and support, as well as strategic direction from state government, and they have to go to the DoH for some issues, and DoE for others. Both agencies have differing structures (centralised and regionalised), varying levels of understanding of the needs and operations of local governments, and different cultures in areas such as enforcement. Accordingly, this makes it hard for LGA officers and the public to know where to go for what information and assistance, and the community often ends up dissatisfied. There are ambiguities, overlaps and duplication of services and issues in the Health Act and the Environmental Protection Act. For example, a waste treatment plant odour could be a Health Act ‘nuisance’ or an Environmental Protection Act ‘unreasonable emission’. Such issues have resulted in buck-passing and relationship difficulties between DoH, local governments and the DoE. Part of the problem is that the EP Act defines an unreasonable emission as one which unreasonably interferes with the health, comfort or amenity of persons. Accordingly, the DoE is responsible for addressing some health issues, although it is not really staffed to understand health impacts on humans. All governments need to have a strong commitment to breaking down the barriers between environmental health and environmental protection and ensuring this is reflected in operational and administrative arrangements. The Act does highlight this need however falls short on defining how environment and health will link. It must be strongly emphasised in the City’s response on the discussion paper that the ability for the proposed Act to ensure improved Health outcomes for the community is severely compromised given the current dictomy of public health and environmental protection, in both legislation, administrative arrangements and operational links between the two areas. The link between Public Health and Environmental Protection must be strongly emphasised in both government practice and decision making and the associated supporting framework of legislation & administrative arrangements. Accordingly, as the new Public Health Act is under development, it is an opportune time to make a fundamental review of the delivery of environmental health services in Western Australia. Furthermore it is suggested that the public/environmental health parts of the Environmental Protection Act should be rethought, and perhaps reduced or removed, so that environmental health issues are covered under one piece of legislation, making it easier for government, enforcers, industry and the community. This may involve not only changes to the Health Act, but changes to the Environmental Protection Act, and even changes to departmental structures. Environmental health is the science of preventing disease, and interrelates with public health and environmental protection. None can be totally separated, as they all are part of the sustainability equation. ATTACHMENTS Nil VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority MOVED Cmr Anderson, SECONDED Cmr Clough that Council: 1 NOTES that the Western Australian Local Government Association is

recommending cautious, in-principle support to the Department’s Discussion Paper and the new approach being proposed and that the final position adopted by the Association will be informed through consultation with members and resolution by the Association State Council;


2 ENDORSES the contents of this report as its guiding principles and strategies in response to a proposed New Public Health Act.

3 NOTES that further update reports will be provided as the drafting of the

legislation is progressed. Cmr Anderson spoke to the Motion. The Motion was Put and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (5/0) CJ288 - 12/05 MIDGE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 2005 – 2010 – [03171] WARD: All RESPONSIBLE Mr Clayton Higham DIRECTOR: Director Planning & Community Development CJ051206_BRF.DOC:ITEM 26 PURPOSE To present to Council for adoption the Midge Management Strategy 2005 – 2010 Implementation Plan, specifying the actions, responsible bodies, timing, funding arrangements and procedures for management of nuisance midge at Lake Joondalup. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Council, at its meeting held on 17 May 2005 (Item CJ097 – 05/05 refers), considered a report seeking endorsement for the renewal of the Midge Management Strategy Partnership between the Department of Conservation and Land Management, City of Wanneroo and City of Joondalup for a further period of five (5) years. The motion was carried unanimously by Council. The Council agreed to continue its support as a member of the Midge Management Strategy for a further five (5) years, subject to a commitment from the other members agreeing to participate and provide funding for an equivalent term. Council also agreed to formalise its role as a partner to the agreement subject to presentation and subsequent adoption of a new Midge Management Strategy (2005 – 2010) specifying actions, responsibility, funding arrangements and amounts. Subsequently all partners have met to develop the Midge Management Strategy 2005 – 2010. In terms of a new strategy – the Midge Management Strategy 2005 – 2010 consists of 3 components: 1 Partnership Agreement 2 Implementation Plan 3 Procedures and Processes


The Midge Management Strategy Implementation Plan attached to this document is recommended for adoption. Adoption of the plan will formalise the City of Joondalup as a partner to the Midge Management Strategy for the next five (5) years. BACKGROUND History to the Midge Management Strategy: In 1998 and 1999 the residents located in close proximity to Lake Joondalup suffered plague proportions of adult midge. Residents expressed concerns to local authorities, the local Members of Parliament, the media and the Minister for the Environment and Labour Relations. At the meeting of the Council on 11 May 1999 a report (Item CJ154 - 05/99 refers) was considered which advised of the severe midge problems that were being experienced by residents living in the vicinity of Lake Joondalup and Lake Goollelal. At that meeting, Council:

• Endorsed the Midge Strategy and Action Plan for Lake Joondalup and Lake Goollelal outlined in the report;

• Approved $21,000 to be listed for consideration as a new initiative in the 1999/2000 annual budget as a high priority (this amount was subsequently approved for research to be undertaken by Edith Cowan University);

• Encouraged the Midge Control Group to establish an Integrated Catchment Management Program for the management of natural resources at the local and regional level.

A further report presented to Council on 28 November 2000 (Item CJ339 – 11/00 refers) outlined the progress of the Midge Control Group, also known as the Yellagonga Catchment Group, towards establishing an Integrated Catchment Program for the management of natural resources at the local and regional level. The report also advised of the findings of an Edith Cowan University study of the midge problem and presented a draft Midge Management Strategy to control midge in Lake Joondalup. The Council resolved to: • Endorse the work of the Yellagonga Catchment Group and continue to support the

broader catchment management role of this group;

• Note the findings of the research prepared by Edith Cowan University into the study of the midge problem associated with Lake Joondalup and Lake Goollelal;

• Adopt the Draft Midge Management Strategy for Lake Joondalup as presented by the Department of Conservation of Land Management subject to:

(a) A commitment being given from the Minister for Conservation and Land Management, ensuring fifty percent of the funding being provided for the implementation of the strategy over at least 5 years;

(b) Listing for consideration in the City's 2001/2002 draft budget an amount of $46,250.00 to implement the CALM Midge Management Strategy for Lake Joondalup;

(c) A commitment from the City of Wanneroo to contribute twenty five percent of the cost of the strategy.


The Midge Management Strategy Partnership Agreement was initiated by the Minister for the Environment and Labour Relations in 2000, advising that the State Government was prepared to fund fifty percent (50%) of the strategy (via the Department of Conservation and Land Management), on the condition that the other half of the funding was shared amongst the two Cities. In the correspondence it was estimated that the total estimated cost of the proposed strategy was likely to be approximately $185,000 per annum. The City of Joondalup together with the City of Wanneroo and the Department of Conservation and Land Management endorsed this proposal, which established the Midge Management Strategy for Lake Joondalup. This strategy agreement expired on 30 June 2005. Appreciating the pending completion of the Midge Management Strategy Partnership Agreement, the City of Wanneroo Council at its meeting on 23 November 2004 resolved that it: 1 SUPPORTS the City's Administration formally advising the partners; City of

Joondalup, Conservation and Land Management (CALM) and Water & Rivers Commission of the completion of the first five (5) year strategy in July 2005;

2 AGREES to the City participating as a member of the Midge Management Strategy

for a further five (5) years, subject to a commitment from the other financial members of this committee agreeing to participating and providing the necessary funding for an equivalent term;

3 REQUIRES that the Midge Management Steering Committee roles be reviewed and

formalised to ensure accountability to relevant stakeholders. In February 2005, The City of Wanneroo wrote to the City of Joondalup requesting the continuation of the Midge Management Strategy for a further five (5) years, subject to all members of the strategy agreeing to participate and provide the necessary funding. Subsequently, the Council of the City of Joondalup at its meeting on 17 May 2005 (Item CJ097 – 05/05 refers) considered a report seeking endorsement for renewal of the Midge Management Strategy Partnership between the Department of Conservation and Land Management, City of Wanneroo and City of Joondalup for a further period of five (5) years. The motion was carried unanimously by Council. At this meeting it was resolved that Council: 1 AGREES to the City of Joondalup advising the City of Wanneroo of its in principle

support to continue as a member of the Midge Management Strategy for a further five (5) years, subject to a commitment from the other financial members of this committee agreeing to participate and provide funding for an equivalent term;

2 AGREES to formalise its role as a partner to the agreement subject to presentation

and subsequent adoption of a new Midge Management Strategy (2005 – 2010) specifying actions, responsibility, funding arrangements and amounts;

3 APPROVES the review and formalisation of the roles of the relevant stakeholders of

the Midge Management Strategy Partnership Agreement; 4 LISTS for consideration an amount of up to $51 250 per year for the next 5 years to

fund the Midge Management Strategy Partnership Agreement, subject to the appropriate funding from the City of Wanneroo and the Department of Conservation and Land Management.


Subsequently all partners have met to develop the Midge Management Strategy 2005 – 2010 and accompanying Implementation Plan. DETAILS In terms of a new five (5) year strategy – the Midge Management Strategy 2005 – 2010 consists of 3 components: 1 Partnership Agreement 2 Implementation Plan 3 Procedures and Processes 1 Partnership Agreement: This document has been developed based on the Western Australian Local Government Association (WALGA) – state and local government partnerships guide and aims to provide for an agreement made in good faith based on the commitment from all partners to an effective and sustainable partnership for the purpose of managing nuisance midge within Lake Joondalup. It does not seek to establish a legal relationship between the partners. It envisages that both Council Chief Executive Officer’s and the District Manager of the Department of Conservation and Land Management will sign off on the Partnership Agreement. This document includes the purpose for the agreement, the partners involved, the objectives of the partnership, the principles to work under, the scope of the agreement, management processes, review periods, dispute resolution processes, break clause and signatories. The Partnership Agreement is for the control and management of nuisance midge in Lake Joondalup and funds midge larval and water monitoring, nuisance reduction using pesticide application when required and other intervention strategies, research projects in an effort to better understand the factors contributing to the seasonal midge plagues and public information and education for the management of nuisance midge within Lake Joondalup. Importantly the Partnership Agreement specifically arranges for the allocation, management and administration of funds of the strategy. 2 Implementation Plan: The Implementation Plan underpins the Partnership Agreement and specifies the actions, responsible bodies, timing, funding arrangements, and procedures for the Midge Management Strategy. The Midge Management Strategy Implementation Plan 2005 – 2010 is attached and has been categorised under the following actions: 1.0 Coordination The Midge Steering Group (previously known as the Midge Steering Committee) has been established between the partners of the strategy and all partners have agreed to providing, allocating and managing funding for the Midge Management Strategy for the following five (5) years.


2.0 Monitoring Midge larval monitoring is undertaken on a weekly basis during the midge season, to assist in better predicting when treatments will be necessary and most effective. Monitoring also includes physical and chemical analysis of Lake Joondalup’s water quality to better understand the Lake’s nutrient status and habitat factors influencing the midge population. Furthermore hovercraft maintenance/repair costs will also be allocated under monitoring. 3.0 Nuisance Reduction Chemical treatment is the most effective method of nuisance reduction currently employed by the Midge Management Strategy to manage midge larval numbers on a temporary basis. However, the new strategy also provides funding for other intervention strategies to reduce reliance on chemical treatment and explore both more effective temporary and permanent methods of nuisance reduction. The other intervention strategies will also reduce possible sustainability and policy implications. 4.0 Research Research funding has now also been made available for research projects undertaken by the metropolitan Midge Research Group. This is a group made up of several state and local government agencies and aims at improving the efficiency and knowledge of managing nuisance midge. Under the new Partnership Agreement the funding is acquitted on an annual basis. 5.0 Public Information and Education The public information and education action encompasses all matters involving public involvement in managing nuisance midge i.e. response to midge nuisance complaints, producing a public midge management information package including a midge management pamphlet and various public education programs. 6.0 Support for Integrated Catchment Management Plan The new strategy focuses on supporting the development and implementation of the Integrated Catchment Management Plan (ICMP) for the Yellagonga Regional Park. Supporting the ICMP can also be achieved through improving both stormwater and groundwater quality entering Lake Joondalup. This action also supports the regional significance requirements for all partners involved in the strategy. 7.0 Reporting The new strategy has also created the action of an annual report being produced on all actions outlined in the Implementation Plan and related action outcomes of each midge season. An annual financial report action has also been created to capture all strategy expenditures. The Implementation Plan attached to this document is recommended for adoption. Adoption of the plan will formalise the City of Joondalup as a partner to the Midge Management Strategy for the following five (5) years. 3 Procedures and Processes: The third part of the strategy contains the documented procedures and processes to support the program. At this stage the Midge Steering Group is currently formulating the required procedures and processes.


Link to Strategic Plan: The proposed initiative would support objective 2.1 of the City’s Strategic Plan, which states, "To plan and manage our natural resources to ensure environmental sustainability”. Legislation – Statutory Provisions: Midge are not considered a threat to public health and therefore are not subject to control under health legislation. Risk Management Considerations: Midge continue to present a problem to residents around the lake. Those residents on the North Eastern side of the lake in the suburb of Wanneroo are predominately affected by the problem. There exists a community expectation of those residents surrounding Lake Joondalup that the Midge Management Strategy continues. As midge are not considered a public health risk, and are of nuisance value only, the City does not have any statutory obligation to contribute or act on the midge problem. However, given the land use activity within the whole of the Yellagonga catchment (both within City of Joondalup and Wanneroo) has contributed to the eutrophication of Lake Joondalup and its resultant midge problem, and the City’s strategic focus of sustainability (focusing on improving the quality of life for current and future residents) and community well being, it is considered appropriate to continue to contribute to the Midge Management Strategy. Financial/Budget Implications: Midge Management Strategy 2005 - 2010 total costs are approximately $205,000 per annum. This apportions to the City’s contribution of approximately $51,250 per annum. Council at its meeting on 17 May 2005 (Item CJ097 – 05/05 refers), approved up to $51,250 per annum to be listed for the next five (5) years to fund the strategy. Policy Implications: The Yellagonga Regional Park Management Plan 2003 – 2013, identifies strategies and priorities with responsibilities across various stakeholders including the City of Joondalup and the City of Wanneroo for management of the park and the many issues that impact on the park. Objective 19 of the document is “to minimize the negative effects of mosquito and midge populations in a manner that has minimal environmental and social impacts”. Key strategies under this objective being – 1. ‘Implement the Midge Management Strategy for Lake Joondalup (2001)’

(Responsibility: CJ, CW, CALM) Priority: High 7. ‘Continue to seek alternatives to chemical pest control that are compatible with the

ecological values of the Park’. (Responsibility: CJ, CW, CALM) Priority: High

Regional Significance: The City of Joondalup together with the City of Wanneroo and the Department of Conservation and Land Management (CALM) has shared responsibilities for the management of the Yellagonga Regional Park Wetlands and surrounding catchments.


Sustainability Implications: The application of chemical to the waterbody does not assist in providing for the long-term environmental sustainability of the Yellagonga Regional Park Wetlands. At this time however, chemical application is the only option available to local governments to provide relief for residents during episodes of emergence of very large numbers of nuisance midge. As stated previously, the new strategy aims at minimising any sustainability implications by reducing the reliance on chemical treatment through funding of other intervention strategies. The other intervention strategies action will investigate other more effective temporary and permanent methods of nuisance reduction. Consultation: A Midge Steering Group has been established between the partners of the strategy, to discuss and make recommendations on any issues pertaining to the Midge Management Strategy. Furthermore, the partners are involved in participating and funding the Midge Research Group on various research projects to improve the efficiency and knowledge for the purpose of managing nuisance midge at Lake Joondalup. A community forum is also held each year at the City of Wanneroo for community members to discuss issues relating to midge management with the partners of the Midge Management Strategy. COMMENT The Midge Management Strategy Implementation Plan 2005 – 2010 has been reviewed and accepted by all partners of the strategy and it is recommended that Council adopt the Implementation Plan to support the effective management of nuisance midge within Lake Joondalup for the next five (5) years. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 Midge Management Strategy Implementation Plan 2005 - 2010 VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority MOVED Cmr Clough, SECONDED Cmr Fox that Council ADOPTS the Midge Management Strategy 2005 – 2010 Implementation Plan forming Attachment 1 to Report CJ288-12/05. Discussion ensued. The Motion was Put and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (5/0) Appendix 23 refers To access this attachment on electronic document, click here: Attach23brf061205.pdf



CJ289 - 12/05 PROPOSED ADDITIONS - NEW FUNCTION ROOM

WITH COURTYARD - CARINE GLADES TAVERN: LOT 12 (493) BEACH ROAD, DUNCRAIG – [05518]

WARD: South Coastal RESPONSIBLE Mr Clayton Higham DIRECTOR: Director Planning and Community Development CJ051206_BRF.DOC:ITEM 27 PURPOSE To request Council determination of an application for planning approval for additions to the Carine Glades Tavern - New Function Room with Courtyard - at Lot 12 (493) Beach Road, Duncraig. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposal is for additions to the existing Tavern including a new separate Function Room with a Courtyard on the eastern side of the premises. The area of the Function Room will be 230m2 and the existing courtyard area will be increased from 39m2 to 84m2. The applicant is proposing a maximum patronage of 652. The previous approval for changes to the Tavern in July 2002 provided for an expansion to accommodate 630 patrons. Following advertising of the proposal, 34 submissions were received including a petition signed by 69 residents. Ten of the submissions raised no objections, the remaining submissions were objections. Given the proximity of the tavern to residential areas, the scale of the tavern and the potential for anti-social behaviour and noise impact, it is recommended that the number of patrons be restricted to the current approved maximum of 630 and not be increased to 652 as proposed. It is considered that the new staff car bays and access will impact on the adjoining residential properties and are not supported. Given that the acoustic issues have been addressed, it is considered that the proposal in its current form, except the staff car bays & access, provides an appropriate development. Appropriate conditions can be applied to the planning approval, if the application is supported, to mitigate against cumulative impacts on the adjoining residential area. BACKGROUND

Suburb/Location: Lot 12 (493) Beach Road, Duncraig Applicant: Mr Brian Higgins Owner: Sitaro Pty Ltd Zoning: DPS: Commercial MRS: Urban Site Area: 1.0339 Ha Structure Plan: Not applicable


An extension to Carine Glades Tavern was approved by Council in 2002. This new application was submitted on 13 June 2005. Following discussions with the applicant and objectors, amended plans were submitted on 21 October 2005. The amended plans included a number of changes designed to address the concerns of residents while providing for the premises to be upgraded and expanded to better meet the needs of the patrons. While it is recognised that the owners of the Tavern want to keep their premises to a high standard, this needs to be balanced against the need to protect the amenity of the adjoining residents. DETAILS The subject lot borders residential development to the east, a childcare centre to the north, a shopping centre to the west and Beach Road to the south. Residences to the east directly abut the tavern carpark and some houses are setback at around 1.0 metre from the common boundary. Noise and anti-social behaviour have been ongoing concerns for the residents and the tavern owners. The proposal is for additions to the existing Tavern including a new separate Function Room with a Courtyard on the eastern side of the premises. The area of the Function Room will be 230m2 and the existing courtyard area will be increased from 39m2 to 84m2. The courtyard area will be partly roofed by glass. The roof of the Function Room will overlap the courtyard area. The applicant is proposing a maximum patronage of 652. Following objections raised by adjoining residents during the advertising process, the applicant has responded to the objections as outlined below (the applicant’s comments are shown in italics):

• Historically, and coincidentally, the residents have plenty of perceived issues and problems with our operations that arise immediately we apply for changes to our premises.

• It has been impossible to process these as the number of complaints listed have

never been supported by the statistics held by the authorities, nor by the reports made directly to us. They have proven to be totally subjective and retrospective in nature.

• As part of our 2002 refurbishment, both the City of Joondalup and Liquor

Licensing required The Carine to have a complaints/dispute procedure agreed with the residents and approved by the authorities. This was done!

• The objective was twofold - to provide a mechanism whereby an early resolution

of a problem could possibly be obtained, and secondly, to provide an objective set of statistics that could be referred to by all parties.

• Aware of the history behind our applications, meetings were held (May-June)

prior to the applications being lodged with the City of Joondalup, Liquor Licensing and residents

• We have received two complaints (both regarding entertainment noise) in 30

months and my recollection is that this was around the time we made public our intention to lodge an application for a new Function Room

• I have been informed that neither the City of Joondalup, nor Liquor Licensing, received any complaints prior to applications being lodged.


• Once again, the objective statistics do not support the resident's claims - it may

well be a deliberate strategy to add weight to the minor number of objections against the new Function Room.

• Irrespective, I am concerned that these perceptions may exist (even in a small

part of the community). I would suggest that, independent of the DA, it is an opportune time for all parties (including the City of Joondalup and Liquor Licensing) to review and reinforce the complaint procedures agreed in 2002.

Following a meeting with the officers of the City of Joondalup, additional information was submitted by the applicant which is summarised below:

• The changes apply only to our Functions operations and as such there is no change to the existing Bar, Bottle Shop, Lounge and Restaurant operations.

• There is no change to the use of the existing Function facilities - including the

existing ‘Entrance’ Courtyard. • New Function areas will operate under existing Functions policy, apart from the

removal of specific conditions on accesses and closing time (ie 7:00pm) for the new Function (‘Enclosed’) Courtyard.

• Maximum Patronage calculated at 652. • The new Function Room is proposed to occupy an existing carpark on the

eastern side of our premises. This carpark currently consists of 20 bays with two way traffic (southern end temporarily closed for access) and will reduce to 13 bays with one way traffic.

• City of Joondalup has accepted the acoustic report submitted with the

Development Application and therefore there is no reason to adjust the proposal on any acoustic grounds.

• Furthermore, the option is to remove these bays and retain the existing, albeit

realigned, two way access is shown but is not considered to be the best acoustic solution.

• Other options may exist to retain effective utilisation of this area, but it is believed

that these will have a significant impact on the proposed plan and therefore cannot be considered at this late stage.”

The figure quoted above for 652 patrons was put forward by the applicant as an indication of the desirable maximum patronage.

Issues and options considered: Council has the discretion to:

• Approve the application without conditions; • Approve the application with conditions; or • Refuse the application.


Link to Strategic Plan: Not Applicable Legislation – Statutory Provisions: A Tavern is a “D” use in a Commercial area. A “D” use means:

“A use class that is not permitted, but to which the Council may grant its approval after following the procedures laid down by subclause 6.6.2.”

Clause 6.6.2 requires that Council in exercising discretion to approve or refuse an application shall have regard to the provisions of clause 6.8, which is shown below: 6.8 MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED BY COUNCIL



amenity of the relevant locality; (b) any relevant submissions by the applicant; (c) any Agreed Structure Plan prepared under the provisions of Part 9 of

the Scheme; (d) any planning policy of the Council adopted under the provisions of

clause 8.11; (e) any other matter which under the provisions of the Scheme the Council

is required to have due regard; (f) any policy of the Commission or its predecessors or successors or any




(h) the comments or wishes of any public or municipal authority received

as part of the submission process; (i) the comments or wishes of any objectors to or supporters of the

application;

(j) any previous decision made by the Council in circumstances which are sufficiently similar for the previous decision to be relevant as a precedent, provided that the Council shall not be bound by such precedent; and





(a) as the Council considers the nature of the proposed use and its

relationship to the use of other land within the locality; (b) the size, shape and character of the parcel of land to which the


for parking, arising from the proposed development; (e) any relevant submissions or objections received by the Council; and (f) such other matters relevant, whether of the same nature as the

foregoing or otherwise. Development Standards under District Planning Scheme 2 (DPS 2)

DPS 2 Policy Standard Required Provided

Front setback (Beach Road) 9m 19.3m Rear setback ( northern side) 6m 35m Side setback (Eastern side)(3 m wall along the parking)

3m 7.6m

Eastern side setback 3m 13.8m Car parking Maximum

Patronage=652 166 bays including 3 bays for bottle shop

166 bays

Landscaping 8%/3m width Comply Risk Management considerations: Not applicable Financial/Budget Implications: Not Applicable Policy Implications: Not Applicable Regional Significance: Not Applicable Sustainability Implications: Not Applicable


Consultation: The original proposal was advertised for public comment from 23 August 2005 to 12 September 2005. One sign was placed on site and newspaper advertising was also used to invite comment. As a result, 34 submissions were received including a petition signed by 69 residents. Some of the nearby residents met with City staff on numerous occasions to discuss various aspects of the proposed development. Ten of the submissions raised no objections and the remaining submissions contained objections. A summary of issues of concern is presented below.

Description of Concern No of times noted in the submissions

Noise 24 Increase in anti-social behaviour including drunkenness, hooning, fights, graffiti, vandalism, loitering.

16

Scale of extension being too close to residential property

3

Details of the issues of concern are presented below.


The petition has raised the following issues. Concerns: Adequate sound proofing for the band area beyond that which is presently in the entertainment; Double glazing applied to all glass wall areas; Removal of proposed 7 new car bays on Plumosa Mews side of Tavern (this area is like a sound magnifying tunnel and cannot be used). Raise height of proposed East (parking bay) brick wall from 2 metres to full roof height. One way traffic on East Side on new proposed extension which is not available. Require EPA standard noise report prior to commencement of building. Restricted to wedding & business functions with, exclusion to birthday parties (18-21), or any other group, which is suspect to behavioural problems and no band concerts. Crowd Control, Management of Behaviour Require details of proposed management plan to both prevent and deal with behaviour & disturbance areas.

Noted. Refer to comments below. Noted. Refer to comments below.


The applicant submitted amended plans on 21 October 2005. A meeting was held with the Resident Group to discuss the amended plans. A summary of comments of the residents’ group together with responses follows: “Car Parking: The residents vehemently oppose the proposed car parking at the East side of the Tavern as this area would be 10.5 metres from residential housing. Residents living at the East side of the Tavern already have serious problems with both noise and disturbances. This area is fragile and is simply an echo chamber. The proposed addition would further reduce the space between the tavern exterior and housing, dramatically increasing the echo effect and unacceptable noise and disturbance to residents from cars and people particularly late at night. This area should not be used for parking of any sort including Tavern staff. Our strong recommendation is that this area be “No entry to Public”, one way traffic and restricted for Tavern use only. Comment: Noted, draft conditions of approval omit parking from this area. “Three Metre Wall at East Side of Tavern: We accept the 3 metre brick wall provided that it is acoustically treated to curtail sound. Comment: The proposed conditions would emphasis the need to conform to noise requirements of the Environmental Protection Act and also limit potential noise generation in the courtyard. “Windows at Eastern Boundary Wall: We have been advised that the new plans show 6 windows 1.2 x 2.2m at ground level. The acoustic report recommends “Windows to be no more than 600m wide and 2500mm above the ground”. This is in contradiction with requirements of the acoustic report. We cannot accept this proposal without further written verification of acceptance by the acoustic engineer and/or the additional acoustic treatments required to overcome the change of window design. Comment: If this application is supported, the City’s officers have recommended that the windows must be acoustically designed and engineered to the same level submitted in the original acoustic report so that they comply with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997. “Function Room Courtyard: We accept that the cantilever roof and the glass canopy stretch the full length of the courtyard (including overlap by 800mm) and is an improvement (acoustically) on the original Plan. We have however concerns with this area which are as follows:

The acoustic report submitted states that there is to be NO amplified music in the courtyard. We request that this be amended to NO music in the courtyard. We further request that these conditions, and any other conditions, are written into the City of Joondalup’s building plan approval.


The acoustic report states that “Bi-fold doors are to be minimum of 10mm thick laminated glass with appropriate seals. When a band is performing, these doors must be closed”. We request that this be amended to NO music in the courtyard and that the doors must be closed when a function is in progress. We further request that these conditions, and any other conditions, are written into the City of Joondalup’s building plan approval.

Qualification: The Carine Tavern successfully had their Entertainment area, Bi-fold door restriction removed from their 2002 licensing condition in January 2005 through the Director of Liquor Licensing. We request that the 2005 Bi-fold door condition be included in the City of Joondalup’s building approval conditions. The function courtyard has open air space throughout its entire length and the residents are concerned that crowd noise will permeate through this open space which is some 25 metres only from Plumosa Mews homes. PLUS: If music is allowed in either the function courtyard or the function room (with the Bi-fold doors open) it is extremely likely that the residents will be subjected to unacceptable noise levels and this situation can be avoided now by imposing condition that Request that City of Joondalup imposing a condition that: NO music is permitted in the function courtyard, And that the Bi-fold doors must be closed at all times when a function is in progress.

Comment: If this application is supported, the City’s officers have recommended the following:

• No music of any kind is permitted in the new courtyard. • The bi-fold doors leaving the new function room must be closed at all time when

a function, band, act or music is in progress. “Function Room: We wish to restrict functions to weddings, business functions, limited & selective sporting functions with exclusion to predominately young age groups eg, 18th & 21st birthdays etc or any other group subject to behavior problems and no live band concerts. Comments (promises) similar to this were made by Tavern management at the Public meeting on 29 May 2005 when the original plans were presented to residents. We request that appropriate conditions be included by the City of Joondalup in their building approval conditions. Qualification: This area is extremely sensitive as the distance to residential homes is 10.5 metres only and it cannot stand any noise emissions.

Comments: This restriction cannot be enforced as it may lead to discrimination. The main planning issues for this application are noise and parking and not the type of people coming to the tavern. “Number of Patrons: Question: How will the Tavern deal with the position when (particularly on a Friday night) a function is in progress in the new function area and there are patrons now in excess of the total patron limits? Will the Tavern refuse entry to, or eject patrons from any of the occupied areas. Comments: The Tavern will have to abide by the maximum number of patrons as stated in any planning approval. Public building occupancy is checked regularly to ensure compliance.


“Behaviour:

Increased numbers of Patrons leads to increased numbers of disturbances! We are concerned as this increase in patronage (incorporating the new function room) is likely to exacerbate the existing unacceptable behavioural problem generated by Tavern patrons particularly at closing time. Comments: Refer to comments below. “The Real Problem: The East boundary wall of the Tavern’s 2005 proposed extension is 10.5 metres from Plumosa Homes and the Plumosa Mews residents’ wall boundary to the Tavern is also (obviously) only10.5 metres away. This walled area space magnifies sound and is unable to be used which was realised and agreed to in prior development plan in 2002. Considerable problems occur now with that area (noise, fights, broken bottles & rubbish thrown over brick wall into Plumosa resident’s homes plus vehicle noise). Residents are also constantly disturbed by people talking in that area; particularly late at night. This concern was expressed strongly to Mr Higgins when the plans were presented to residents on Sunday 29 May 2005. We cannot accept parking or use by the general public in this area. The Tavern has other areas which can and are more appropriate to be converted to serve as parking bays. It is not possible to treat this area as anything other than sensitive and pre-emptive measures must be taken prior to building approval as it is extremely costly to repair if it is not “done right” the first time The aforementioned comments also apply to the use and conditions applicable to the function room and Function courtyard Comment: Draft conditions of approval omit parking from this area. COMMENT Car Parking and Number of Patrons DPS2 standards for the provisions of car parking are based on a combination of standing and seating areas. However in 2002, Council approved an extension to the tavern and the parking requirement was 1 bay per 4 people based on restricted patron numbers solely. In 2002, Council granted approval for a maximum occupancy of the Tavern premises at 630 patrons at any one time. The parking calculations for the 2002 approval were:

Required Provided

Tavern/Restaurant Number of patrons = 630 1 bay per 4 persons = 157.5

bays

Bottle Shop (existing) 7 bays per 100 sqm= 3 bays

Total 160.5 bays 162 bays


The parking requirement for the new extension, 1 bay per 4 people, is an appropriate measure to apply in this instance.

Required Proposed

Tavern/Restaurant Number of patrons = 652 1 bay per 4 persons = 163

bays

Bottle Shop (existing) 7 bays per 100 sqm= 3 bays

Total 166 166 Given the issues associated with anti-social behaviour and noise impact, it is recommended that the number of patrons should be restricted to 630 only and not to be increased to 652 as proposed. In this instance, the parking requirement would be 161 bays as per the 2002 approval. The plans submitted show new parking bays are being provided at the north-eastern corner and along the proposed function room (the eastern boundary) for staff bays. When the plans for extension to Carine Tavern were approved in 2002, the car parking bays were approved with a setback of 4 metres from the eastern boundary (residential development). However the parking bays were constructed at 2 metres from the eastern boundary, which are correctly shown on the plans, submitted for this application. There have been no concerns from the adjoining neighbours in respect of the existing parking bays at 2 metres from the boundary except with the new staff parking bays and access which are addressed below. Acoustic Assessment An acoustic assessment report was submitted which is considered acceptable by the City to address noise issues. However, there still remains the issue of the impact of noise associated with vehicle movement and parking (new staff bays) between the proposed function room and the adjoining residential property. This area was approved previously for service access and for parking. The provision of the 7 car bays adjacent to along the function room was not covered by the applicant’s acoustic report. It is considered that the new staff car bays and access will impact on the adjoining residential properties in terms of noise as follows: • Staff walking to this parking area late at night or early morning and talking. • The movement of cars for parking. • The patrons vehicles will use this access way. Though the applicant has stated there

will be no hump along this access way to minimise noise there is concern that the noise of cars at night will impact on the adjoining properties. Moreover this area may be used for anti-social activities that will exacerbate the impact on the adjoining residential properties.

It is suggested that no parking shall be allowed in this area and the access way shall be restricted to service access only. This will address the concerns of the community. Given the Council support that the maximum number of patrons shall remain 630, then parking bays required would be 161 (including the bays for the bottle shop). The plans submitted for the proposal show the total number of parking bays proposed is 166 (including the bays for the bottle shop). Therefore by not having the 7 new staff bays the number of car bays will be 159. Therefore the applicant will have to provide 2 additional car bays. There is enough space at the rear property and additional 2 car bays can be provided.


Management Plan The community is concerned that the additions will increase the anti-social behaviour in the area. There is suggestion from the public that the function room be restricted to weddings & business with, exclusion of birthday parties for ages 18-21 which will lead to more anti-social behaviour. The City cannot enforce this type of restriction, however, given the concerns of the community, it is suggested that the number of patrons be restricted to 630 only as was approved previously. There was a Management Plan approved by Council in 2002 to provide a responsive and responsible management of the tavern. The plan included entertainment policy guidelines, noise containment, noise complaint procedures, patronage monitoring schedule, anti-social behaviour, on-going residents’ meeting. Therefore if the number of patrons is restricted to 630, it is suggested, if this application is supported, that the management of the Tavern shall at times be conducted in the manner outlined in the Management Policy Statement dated 10 May 2002. Conclusion Given that the acoustic issues have been addressed, it is considered that the proposal in its current form, except the staff car bays & access, provides an appropriate development. Appropriate conditions can be applied to the planning approval, if the application is supported, to mitigate any additional negative impact on the adjoining residential area. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 Location Plan Attachment 2 Development Plan VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION: That Council APPROVES the application and revised plans submitted by Brian Higgins, on behalf of the owner, Sitaro Pty Ltd, for additions to the Carine Glades Tavern, on Lot 12 (493) Beach Road, Duncraig, subject to the following conditions: 1 The maximum occupancy of the Tavern premises at any one time shall be retained at

the currently approved level of 630 patrons. 2 The provision of not less than 161 parking bays on site; 3 The staff parking bays and the access way along the eastern boundary is not

supported as shown on the approved plans. The applicant is requested to amend the plans showing no parking bays and a service access in lieu of an access way to the satisfaction of the Manager, Approvals, Planning & Environmental Services;

4 The proposed new function room should be constructed in accordance with the

recommendations contained in section 7 of the Noise Impact Assessment prepared by Lloyd Acoustics. Reference 503342-02a;


5 The actual on-site sound level assessment is to be undertaken upon completion and prior to opening. This assessment should be conducted by a recognised acoustic consultant and demonstrate that the premises will comply with requirements of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. This report is to be submitted to the City of Joondalup to the satisfaction of the Manager, Approvals, Planning & Environmental Services;

6 No music or amplified sound is permitted in the new courtyard; 7 The bi-fold doors leaving the new function room must be closed at all times when a

function, band, act or music is in progress;

8 Delivery access to new function room via roller shutter shall be only between 8:00am and 8:00pm;

9 The materials and finishes of the additions shall complement the existing building on

site to the satisfaction of the Manager, Approvals, Planning & Environmental Services;

10 All stormwater must be contained on-site to the satisfaction of the Manager

Infrastructure Management Services;

11 The parking bay/s and points of ingress and egress to be designed in accordance with the Australian Standard for Offstreet Carparking (AS2890). Such areas are to be constructed, drained, marked and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Management prior to the development first being occupied. These works are to be done as part of the building programme;

12 The management of the Tavern shall at all times be conducted in the manner outlined

in the Management Policy Statement dated 10 May 2002.

Footnotes 1 Compliance with the Building Code of Australia Volume One;

2 Additions to comply with Health (Food Hygiene) Regulations 1993; 3 Compliance with Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997;

4 Additions to comply with Health (Public Building) Regulations 1992. To this regard, a

sufficient number of exits shall be provided and the path of travel shall be clear and unobstructed. The applicant is advised that a Form 3 Application for Variation of Certificate of Approval will be required. The maximum accommodation may be restricted by the provision of exits, the sanitary facilities or the new available floor area;

5 All signage proposed is to be submitted with a separate planning application and sign

licence.


MOVED Cmr Smith, SECONDED Cmr Anderson that Council APPROVES the application and revised plans submitted by Brian Higgins, on behalf of the owner, Sitaro Pty Ltd, for additions to the Carine Glades Tavern, on Lot 12 (493) Beach Road, Duncraig, subject to the following conditions: 1 The maximum occupancy of the Tavern premises at any one time shall be

retained at the currently approved level of 630 patrons. 2 The provision of not less than 161 parking bays on site; 3 The staff parking bays and the access way along the eastern boundary is not

supported as shown on the approved plans. The applicant is requested to amend the plans showing no parking bays and a service access in lieu of an access way to the satisfaction of the Manager, Approvals, Planning & Environmental Services;

4 The proposed new function room should be constructed in accordance with the

recommendations contained in section 7 of the Noise Impact Assessment prepared by Lloyd Acoustics. Reference 503342-02a;

5 The actual on-site sound level assessment is to be undertaken upon

completion and prior to opening. This assessment should be conducted by a recognised acoustic consultant and demonstrate that the premises will comply with requirements of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. This report is to be submitted to the City of Joondalup to the satisfaction of the Manager, Approvals, Planning & Environmental Services;

6 No music or amplified sound is permitted in the new courtyard;

7 The bi-fold doors leaving the new function room must be closed at all times

when a band, act or music is in progress and at other times if the doors are open, the room must be operated so that it complies with the Noise Regulations;

8 Delivery access to new function room via roller shutter shall be only between

8:00am and 8:00pm;

9 The materials and finishes of the additions shall complement the existing building on site to the satisfaction of the Manager, Approvals, Planning & Environmental Services;

10 All stormwater must be contained on-site to the satisfaction of the Manager

Infrastructure Management Services;

11 The parking bay/s and points of ingress and egress to be designed in accordance with the Australian Standard for Offstreet Carparking (AS2890). Such areas are to be constructed, drained, marked and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Management prior to the development first being occupied. These works are to be done as part of the building programme;

12 The management of the Tavern shall at all times be conducted in the manner

outlined in the Management Policy Statement dated 10 May 2002.


Footnotes 1 Compliance with the Building Code of Australia Volume One;

2 Additions to comply with Health (Food Hygiene) Regulations 1993; 3 Compliance with Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997;

4 Additions to comply with Health (Public Building) Regulations 1992. To this

regard, a sufficient number of exits shall be provided and the path of travel shall be clear and unobstructed. The applicant is advised that a Form 3 Application for Variation of Certificate of Approval will be required. The maximum accommodation may be restricted by the provision of exits, the sanitary facilities or the new available floor area;

5 All signage proposed is to be submitted with a separate planning application

and sign licence; 6 The applicant be advised that the dimensions of the windows will be addressed

at the Building Licence stage in accordance with the dimensions referred to in the Acoustic Report.

Discussion ensued. The Motion was Put and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (5/0) Appendix 24 refers To access this attachment on electronic document, click here: Attach24061205.pdf CJ290 - 12/05 PROPOSED TWO NEW COURTYARDS FOR

ALFRESCO SEATING - CRAIGIE TAVERN: LOT 675 (111) EDDYSTONE AVENUE, CRAIGIE – [10859]

WARD: Pinnaroo RESPONSIBLE Mr Clayton Higham DIRECTOR: Director Planning and Community Development CJ051206_BRF.DOC:ITEM 28 PURPOSE To request Council’s determination of an application for planning approval for additions to the Craigie Tavern – two new courtyards for Alfresco Seating at Lot 675 (111) Eddystone Avenue, Craigie. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposal is for 2 courtyard additions on the southern side of the Craigie Tavern. The application also includes modifications to the southern façade involving a new entry statement. This work entails extending the paved access area around the entrance and extending the roof over the pedestrian access way connecting the entrance and the two proposed courtyards.

Attach24061205.pdf


The application was advertised and received three objections, mostly relating to possible potential problems associated with noise and antisocial behaviour. It is considered that the noise issue can be addressed by conditions and through the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997. The additions to the Tavern will result in a parking shortfall of 18 bays. The site has reciprocal car parking agreement with the adjoining Lot 673 which is occupied by the Craigie Plaza Shopping Centre, however there is a car parking shortfall on this site of approximately 46 bays. The impact of the shortfall of car parking bays is reduced due to the peak time of operation of the Tavern being in the evenings and for the Shopping Centre the peak time is during the day. Additionally we are advised that due to the capacity of the toilet facilities in the building that a restriction will be placed on the licensee that will restrict the maximum number of patrons allowed on the premises to current levels. Given that acoustic and parking issues can been addressed, it is considered that the proposal will not adversely affect the amenity of the area and is an appropriate extension of the existing use. Appropriate conditions can be applied to the planning approval, if the application is supported, to mitigate any additional negative impact on the adjoining residential area. BACKGROUND

Suburb/Location: Lot 675 (111) Eddystone Avenue, Craigie. Applicant: Oldfield Knott Architects Pty Ltd Owner: Eretta Pty Ltd Zoning: DPS: Commercial

MRS: Urban Site Area: 0.4517Ha Structure Plan: Not applicable

Additions to the public bar and a new entry were approved in June 1999. DETAILS The subject site borders a single residential development to the north and the north west. To the west and south-west the site abuts the Craigie Plaza Shopping Centre. To the south the site abuts a vacant site (Lot 674) which is currently zoned for a service station but the owners are in the process of rezoning the land to residential. Lot 675 is approximately 1.0–2.0 metres lower than Lot 674 to the south. The proposed courtyards are to be located on the southern frontage of the tavern. The two courtyards will have a total area of 73.4m2. The Tavern is currently limited to a total of 200 patrons based on toilet numbers; the current application has not included any plans to increase the number of toilets.


Issues and options considered: Council has the discretion to:

• Approve the application without conditions; • Approve the application with conditions; or • Refuse the application.

Link to Strategic Plan: Not Applicable. Legislation – Statutory Provisions: A Tavern is a “D” use in a Commercial area. A “D” use means:

“A use class that is not permitted, but to which the Council may grant its approval after following the procedures laid down by subclause 6.6.2.”

Clause 4.5 provides for the Council to approve an application, either unconditionally or subject to conditions, that does not comply with a standard or requirement prescribed under the Scheme, as set out below: 4.5 VARIATIONS TO SITE AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS

4.5.1 Except for development in respect of which the Residential Planning Codes

apply and the requirements set out in Clauses 3.7.3 and 3.11.5, if a development is the subject of an application for planning approval and does not comply with a standard or requirement prescribed under the Scheme, the Council may, notwithstanding that non-compliance, approve the application unconditionally or subject to such conditions as the Council thinks fit.

4.5.2 In considering an application for planning approval under this clause, where,

in the opinion of Council, the variation is likely to affect any owners or occupiers in the general locality or adjoining the site which is subject of consideration for the variation, the Council shall:

(k) consult the affected parties by following one or more of the provisions

for advertising uses pursuant to clause 6.7.1 and (l) have regard to any expressed views prior to making its decision to

grant the variation.

4.5.3 The power conferred by this clause may only be exercised if the Council is satisfied that:

(a) approval of the proposed development would be appropriate having

regard to the criteria set out in Clause 6.8; and

(b) the non-compliance will not have any adverse effect upon the occupiers or users of the development or the inhabitants of the locality or upon the likely future development of the locality


Clause 6.6.2 requires that Council in exercising discretion to approve or refuse an application shall have regard to the provisions of Clause 6.8, which is set out below: 6.8 MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED BY COUNCIL



amenity of the relevant locality; (b) any relevant submissions by the applicant;

(c) any Agreed Structure Plan prepared under the provisions of Part 9 of

the Scheme; (d) any planning policy of the Council adopted under the provisions of

clause 8.11; (e) any other matter which under the provisions of the Scheme the Council

is required to have due regard; (f) any policy of the Commission or its predecessors or successors or any




(h) the comments or wishes of any public or municipal authority received as

part of the submission process; (i) the comments or wishes of any objectors to or supporters of the

application; (j) any previous decision made by the Council in circumstances which are






(a) the nature of the proposed use and its relationship to the use of other land within the locality;

(b) the size, shape and character of the parcel of land to which the


for parking, arising from the proposed development; (e) any relevant submissions or objections received by the Council; and (f) such other matters as the Council considers relevant, whether of the


Development Standards under District Planning Scheme 2 (DPS 2)

DPS 2 Policy Standard Required Provided

Front setback (Eddystone Ave.) 9 m 11.5 m Rear setback (Western side) 6 m 6.5 m Side setback (Northern side) 3 m 20.5 m Side setback (Southern side) 3 m 32 m Car parking Maximum

Patronage=200 95.2 bays

78 bays

Landscaping 8% /3 m width Comply Car Parking The car parking requirement has been calculated as per Table 2 and Clause 4.8 of DPS2. The use class of tavern has been identified as the dominant use for the purpose of calculating parking. Land use DPS2 Car Parking

Standard Bays Required Current parking

allocation Tavern 1 per 3m2 NLA of

standing area Public bar 125m2 = 41.6m2

78 bays on site Lot 675

1 per 5m2 for seating area Dinning 87m2 = 17.4 Lounge 108m2 = 21.6 courtyard 73.36m2 = 14.6

95.2 bays 78 bays on site There is a shortfall of 18 parking bays on site. It is noted that there is a deed of covenant between Lot 675 (tavern site) and Lot 673 (shopping centre) that provides for the parking areas on both lots to be “common to all”. However a review of the parking provision on Lot 673 indicates that there is a NLA floor space of 2, 937m2. A total of 160 bays provided on the site and 206 bays are required and accordingly a shortfall of 46 bays currently exists. Generally, it is considered that the greatest peak period parking demand for the different land uses (tavern & commercial shopping centre) are at different times ie morning, lunch and afternoon for the shopping centre and evenings for the tavern.


Under the Health (Public Building) Regulations and due to the number of toilets, the total number of patrons cannot increase from the currently approved (under the Health Act) 200 persons maximum accommodation. Therefore the courtyard areas are not expected to create significant additional parking demand. The parking bays and disabled parking bay abutting the proposed building extensions are shown on the submitted plans with dimensions less than that provided for under AS 2890 however this can be addressed at building licence stage. Environmental Issues No acoustic report has been prepared for the application. The proposal is of a small scale, does not include a proposal for amplified music and the courtyards do not adjoin a residential or other noise sensitive area. It is expected that the facilities can be operated within the provisions of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997. An outdoor area associated with a tavern in the Western Australian climate is not considered to be an unsuitable or inappropriate ancillary facility. Risk Management considerations: Not Applicable. Financial/Budget Implications: Not Applicable. Policy Implications: Not Applicable. Regional Significance: Not Applicable. Sustainability Implications: Not Applicable. Consultation: The original proposal was advertised for public comment between 29 July 2005 and 12 August 2005. Letters were sent to adjacent residents and to the owners of the Craigie Plaza Shopping Centre and the Craigie Indoor Bowling Centre. The proposal was advertised by way of letters to properties that where deemed to be potentially affected by the proposed additions. 12 advertising letters were sent, a total of 5 responses were received, being 2 non-objections and 3 objections. A summary of the objections is as follows:


Objection Officers Comment

Any courtyard area will increase noise levels; 1 Making it difficult for the house

resident to enjoy a peaceful evening.

2 Making the property difficult to rent.

3 Lowering the value of my property due to noise levels and possibly music.

4 Any outside music would make life unbearable for residents in the house and make it difficult to rent and lower the house value.

Condition that no music will be played in the courtyard areas Residential properties are located on the opposite side of building from the location of the proposed courtyards and therefore it is unlikely that the properties will be affected by increased noise as a result of the courtyard addition. The objecting owner does not live at the adjoining property.

This will increase the noise level considerably as well as the behaviour that goes with outside drinking. Increase the movement in the lane way next to our property, improving the chance of more graffiti and damage to our property (the fence has been broken twice).

Residential properties are located on the opposite side of building from the location of the proposed courtyards and therefore it is unlikely that the property will be affected by increased noise as a result of the courtyard addition. The objecting owner does not live at the adjoining property. Anti social behaviour and damage in PAW cannot be directly related to tavern patrons.

We are concerned at the proximity of these courtyards to the proposed 8 residences on our block of land. We fear that the resulting additional noise and light and possible extra traffic will detract from the appeal of these home and from the quiet enjoyment of their outdoor areas by future residents.

A condition is required that no music will be played in the courtyard areas and that lighting be designed in accordance with Australian Standards to reduce light spill. The objector is the owner of the adjoining petrol station site that is in the process of rezoning from commercial to residential. The corner site is abutted by the Craigie Plaza on one side and the tavern on the other. The proposed rezoning should not restrict additions or alterations to the existing commercial properties. The subject tavern is greater than 1.0 metre lower than the adjoining site which would help to reduce any possible future impact between the tavern and the residents.


COMMENT It is understood that the small courtyard areas will be primarily used as smoking areas when the total smoking ban on enclosed public places comes into effect in January 2007. The Courtyard additions will improve the appearance of the tavern and given their small size and that they are not directly adjoining a bar it is not expected that these areas will encourage anti-social behaviour. Given that a deed of access exists between Lot 673 and Lot 675 with regards to shared car parking, the 18-bay shortfall in car parking is deemed to be acceptable as there is no conflict between the peak period of activity of the uses on the two sites. The variation to standards for parking will not cause any amenity impact upon the locality in this instance. It is therefore recommended that the application for two courtyard areas be approved for the following reasons:

• there is a deed of access parking agreement with the adjoining Lot 673 (Craigie Plaza);

• the peak times of use of the Tavern do not coincide with the generally daytime peak periods of the Craigie Plaza Shopping Centre;

• due to the health regulations there will be no net increase in the number of patrons to the tavern with the development of the courtyards;

• the courtyards are located on the opposite side of the tavern from the existing residential properties and are unlikely to create significant additional noise;

• amplified music or a public address system will not be permitted in the courtyards;

• the operation of the courtyards will be subject to the provisions of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997;

The adjoining Lot 674 is subject to a rezoning application from commercial to residential. It is considered that the development potential and possible future viability of the Tavern and the Craigie Plaza Shopping Centre should not be constrained or the owners otherwise penalised because the owner of the adjoining lot is seeking to rezone the site from commercial to residential. No management plan is in place for the tavern. The tavern is of a relatively small scale and since its establishment approximately 14 years ago, there has been no significant changes to the building and no perceived need for a management plan to be prepared. Conclusion It is considered that the proposed use is consistent with the zoning of the commercial area and the approved use on the subject site. It is recommended that the application, subject to conditions, be supported. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 Location Plan Attachment 2 Development Plan Attachment 3 Aerial Photograph VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority


MOVED Cmr Anderson, SECONDED Cmr Clough that Council: 1 DETERMINES that 78 car parking bays in lieu of 96 car parking bays is

appropriate in this instance; 2 APPROVES the application and revised plans submitted by Oldfield Knott

Architects Pty Ltd., on behalf of the owner, Eretta Pty Ltd, for additions to the Craigie Tavern, on Lot 675 (111) Eddystone Ave, Duncraig, subject to the following conditions:

(a) The maximum occupancy of the Tavern premises shall be 200 patrons at

any one time; (b) The provision of not less than 77 parking bays on the site; (c) The applicant is requested to amend the plans by modifying the

dimensions of parking bays 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 (disabled parking bay) abutting the proposed courtyards to meet AS2890 to the satisfaction of the Manager, Approvals, Planning & Environmental Services;

(d) The applicant is requested to amend the plans by omitting parking bay 3

to provide for emergency access from the building to the satisfaction of the Manager, Approvals, Planning & Environmental Services;

(e) The parking bay/s and points of ingress and egress to be designed in

accordance with the Australian Standard for Offstreet Carparking (AS2890). Such areas are to be constructed, drained, marked and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Managements prior to the development first being occupied. These works are to be done as part of the building programme;

(f) No amplified music or public address system of any kind permitted in

the new courtyards; (g) The materials and finishes of the additions shall complement the

existing building on site to the satisfaction of the Manager, Approvals, Planning & Environmental Services;

(h) All stormwater must be contained on-site to the satisfaction of the

Manager of Infrastructure Management Services. Footnotes

1 Compliance with the Building Code of Australia Volume One;

2 Compliance with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997; 3 Additions to comply with Health (public Building) Regulations 1992. To this

regard, a sufficient number of exits shall be provided and the path of travel shall be clear and unobstructed. Applicant is advised that a Form 3 Application for Variation of Certificate of Approval will be required. The maximum accommodation may be restricted by the provision of exits, the sanitary facilities or the new available floor area;


4 All signage proposed is to be submitted with a separate planning application and sign licence.

The Motion was Put and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (5/0) Appendix 25 refers To access this attachment on electronic document, click here: Attach25brf061205.pdf CJ291 - 12/05 ARTS MANAGEMENT STRATEGY – [14158] WARD: All RESPONSIBLE Mr Clayton Higham DIRECTOR: Planning and Community Development CJ051206_BRF.DOC:ITEM 29 PURPOSE The purpose of this report is for the Council to adopt the Arts Management Strategy. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In February 2005, the Council requested the development of a Strategic Plan, which would outline a process for the acquisition, disposal, and display of artworks in the City’s art collection. The Strategy supports the City Policy 5.3, Cultural Development, which provides Council’s policy position on art, culture and the heritage collection. The Policy makes specific reference to the City’s Arts Management Strategy and notes that the Strategy will determine the long-term management, acquisition plan, display, valuation and sale of the collection. It is recommended that Council adopt the Arts Management Strategy shown as attachment 1 to Report CJ291-12/05. BACKGROUND On the 22 February 2005 the Council requested that a strategic plan be developed for the art collection that takes into account an acquisition and disposal plan, and contains a strategy for the display of art works throughout the City’s offices and appropriate buildings within the City of Joondalup, such as Edith Cowan University. (CJ014 - 02/05 refers). Following a review of the policies of the Council in October 2005 a new City Policy 5.3, Cultural Development, was adopted by the Council (CJ206 - 10/05 refers). This Policy combined three former policies, (Art Collection 4.4.1, Museum Collections and Operations 4.4.2, and Public Art 4.4.3). The new Policy, Cultural Development 5.3 makes specific reference to the City’s Arts Management Strategy which will determine the long-term management, acquisition plan, display, valuation and sale of the collection.



DETAILS The Arts Management Strategy outlines a process for acquisition, display, storage and conservation, maintenance and valuation, disposal and loan of the City’s art collection. Issues and options considered: In developing the Strategy the following issues were considered: • Strategic management of the City’s Art Collection; • Development and maintenance of the City’s Art Collection in accordance with industry

standards; • Ensuring the preservation and safekeeping of the collection; • Broadening knowledge and appreciation of the Collection through display and loan; • Maximising accessibility to the Collection; • Heightening public profile of the Collection leading to greater community awareness and

involvement; and • Acquiring art works that best reflect the cultural development of the City of Joondalup. Link to Strategic Plan: Outcome: The City of Joondalup is a cultural centre Objective 1.2: To meet the cultural needs and values of the community Outcome: The City of Joondalup is a sustainable and accountable business. Objective 4.1: To manage the business in a responsible and accountable manner. Legislation – Statutory Provisions: Not Applicable. Risk Management considerations: The City’s art collection has considerable financial, artistic and cultural value and many of the works are unique and irreplaceable. The Arts Management Strategy provides a clearly defined process for sound management, preservation, promotion and protection of the collection. The Strategy will ensure that the Art Collection is managed according to high industry standards of management, collection, acquisitions and de-accessioning of work from the collection. Financial/Budget Implications: Not Applicable. Policy implications: Policy 5.3.1, Cultural Development provides Council’s policy position on art, culture and the heritage collection, and makes specific reference to the City’s Arts Management Strategy as the vehicle for determining the long-term management, acquisition plan, display, valuation and sale of the City’s art collection.


Regional Significance: The City of Joondalup Art Collection was established following the separation of the City of Joondalup from the City of Wanneroo in 1997. The collection was divided equally by value between the two Cities with the City of Wanneroo retaining the historical collection, the regional landscapes and the Indigenous collection. The City of Joondalup acquired the contemporary collection. The strategy for the division of the two collections and the City of Joondalup’s subsequent collection purchases have been to build a broad, high quality, art collection, that is of general interest, accessible to the public and is in keeping with the ambitions of Joondalup as a new regional City. Sustainability implications: The Arts Management Strategy will ensure that the value of the Art Collection is retained through appropriate purchases, and management of the collection. Appropriate stewardship of this valuable asset will also provide maximum access and benefits for the community. Consultation: Not Applicable. COMMENT As the custodian of the art collection, the City has a responsibility to ensure that the collection is managed according to industry standards of collection development, preservation and access. Through the strategic management of the Collection the City is committed to ensuring its ongoing significance and value for the City of Joondalup and the wider community. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 Arts Management Strategy VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority MOVED Cmr Smith, SECONDED Cmr Clough that Council ADOPTS the Arts Management Strategy shown as Attachment 1 to Report CJ291-12/05. The Motion was Put and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (5/0) Appendix 26 refers To access this attachment on electronic document, click here: Attach26brf061205.pdf



CJ292 - 12/05 PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO DISTRICT PLANNING

SCHEME NO 2 TO INCLUDE PROVISIONS IN REGARD TO THE HEIGHT OF DEVELOPMENTS IN NON-RESIDENTIAL ZONES ADJACENT TO THE COAST – [83573]

WARD: South Coastal, Whitford, Marina, North Coastal RESPONSIBLE Mr Clayton Higham DIRECTOR: Planning and Community Development CJ-051206_BRF.DOC:ITEM 30 PURPOSE To request Council to consider the initiation of an amendment to the District Planning Scheme No 2 (DPS2), to include provisions in regard to the height of developments in non-residential zones adjacent to the coast. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 2004, the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure recommended that the Council consider the introduction of commercial height controls for land along the coastal strip. Maximum height requirements can be introduced via a Local Planning Policy, or via an amendment to DPS2. While a policy is an approach that can be considered by Council, it does not have the statutory status of the DPS2, and an amendment to DPS2 is recommended in this instance. In order to address the Minister’s recommendation, it is proposed to amend the DPS2 to introduce a height limit of 10 metres in the non-residential zones of the coastal strip. The coastal strip is proposed to be the area 300 metres from the horizontal setback datum of the coast as defined by the Western Australian Planning Commission’s (WAPC) State Coastal Planning Policy (Statement of Planning Policy 2.6). The proposed coastal area is shown in Attachment 1. In accordance with the provisions of DPS2, any amendment to DPS2 to include height controls would not apply to land Reserved under the Metropolitan Region Scheme. To support the introduction of DPS2 height controls in the coastal area, a definition of ‘Natural Ground Level’, and minor amendments to the definition of ‘Height’ are proposed to be included within DPS2. It is recommended that Council: 1 Pursuant to section 7 of the Town Planning and Development Act 1928, Council

AMENDS the City of Joondalup District Planning Scheme No 2, for the purpose of advertising for a period of 42 days, as follows:


“1. A new clause 4.17 is added as follows:

4.17 BUILDING HEIGHT

4.17.1 This clause applies to all land other than land within the Residential Zone.

4.17.2 On land within 300 metres of the horizontal set back datum

of a coast, as defined in the Western Australian Planning Commission’s Statement of Planning Policy 2.6, buildings shall not exceed 10 metres in height.

4.17.3 Notwithstanding clause 4.5, the Council shall not approve

an application for planning approval of a proposed development which does not comply with clause 4.17.2.

2 Schedule 1 is amended as follows:

(a) the definition “height” is deleted and the following definition is

substituted:

“height: when used in relation to:

(i) a building used exclusively for residential purposes, has the same meaning given to it in the Codes; or

(ii) a building used other than exclusively for residential purposes,

means the vertical distance measured at any point from the natural ground level to the uppermost part of the building above that point excluding any chimney or vent pipe.”

(b) by adding the following new definition:

“natural ground level: (a) means the ground level as formed by nature; or (b) where a level exists other than the ground level as formed by

nature, and that level is the subject of all approvals required by law to authorise that level, means that level.”

2 In accordance with Section 25 of the Town Planning Regulations 1967, prior to the

advertising period commencing, FORWARDS the proposed amendment to the Environmental Protection Authority in order to decide if an environmental review is required.

3 UNDERTAKES the advertising period for the proposed amendment to DPS2 as

outlined in Point 1 and 2 to commence following the Christmas and New Year period; 4 In accordance with Clause 8.11.3 of District Planning Scheme No 2 ADOPTS the

draft Policy as per Attachment 4 to Report CJ292-12/05 for the purpose of public advertising for a period of twenty-eight (28) days for public comment;


5 NOTES that no amendments to Policy 3-2 Height and Scale of Buildings within a Residential Area are required.

6 In the event that Council adopts for final approval ‘Policy 3-4 Height of Buildings

within the Coastal Area (Non-Residential Zones)’ AMENDS the Town Planning Delegations to read that, in relation to the Policy 3-4, no delegation to officers would apply.

7 FORWARDS this Report to the WAPC as the basis of a submission on the proposed

amendments to the State Coastal Planning Policy 2.6. BACKGROUND In 2004, the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure held an inquiry into whether the City/Council had enforced the provisions of its DPS2 in relation to the Mullaloo Tavern redevelopment. While the Minister found there was no case to answer, it was recommended that the lack of commercial height controls within the coastal strip addressed. Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) – Clause 32 (Resolution No 62) Subsequently, the issue has been considered on a generic basis for all coastal land within the Perth Metropolitan area. The WAPC has recently adopted Clause 32 Resolution No 62 relating to Coastal Buildings Above Specified Heights. The resolution requires all Councils to refer for determination by the WAPC all applications for approval to commence development for residential, office and hotel purposes above specified heights on land within 300 metres of the horizontal setback datum of the coast, as defined in the State Coastal Planning Policy (Statement of Planning Policy 2.6), as follows:

(i) Where no building height is set out in the operative local government town planning scheme, development applications for the purposes indicated (or any combination of those purposes) exceeding five storeys and 21 metres in height.

or

(ii) Where the operative local government town planning scheme sets out a building

height limitation of eight storeys or above in respect of the area, developments for the purposes indicates (or any combinations of those purposes) exceeding eight storeys and 32 metres in height.

At present, (i) above would apply to the City of Joondalup as DPS2 does not include coastal height provisions. However, Council Policy 3-2 (Height and Scale of Buildings within a Residential Area) applies to development within the Residential Zone. In addition, the WAPC is currently advertising a proposed amendment to the State Coastal Planning Policy to incorporate height limits within that Policy. It is proposed that a height limit of 5 storeys be included, while 8 storeys may be considered in certain circumstances. Local Authority Town Planning Schemes may specify lower maximum height limits in order to achieve outcomes that respond to the desired character, built form, and the amenity of the locality. It is recommended that this report form the basis of a submission to the WAPC on the proposed amendments to the State Coastal Planning Policy.


Policy 3-2 Height and Scale of Buildings within a Residential Area At its meeting held on 2 November 2005, Council considered a recommendation of the Policy Committee, and resolved the following:

“Requests that a draft policy be presented to the Policy Committee on Policy 3-2 Height and Scale of Buildings within Residential Areas, that includes coastal areas and is based on the expectation that full public participation is undertaken.”

Policy 3-2 currently covers all areas zoned Residential, including the coastal areas, unless otherwise determined by a structure plan. The policy establishes a ‘building envelope’ over a site, which at its maximum is 8.5m in height. The height envelope is not a statutory limit, rather it provides an ‘as of right’ path to development approval. If a proposed development exceeds the building envelope a neighbour consultation process is invoked. The purpose of this report is to address those coastal areas not covered by Policy 3-2. No change to Policy 3-2 is therefore proposed. Regional Reservations In accordance with Clause 1.2 and 2.2 of DPS2 , the provisions of DPS2 do not apply to Regional Reservations under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (Attachment 5). The responsible authority for Regional Reserves is the Western Australian Planning Commission. Therefore, any scheme amendment adopted by Council to include coastal height limits would not apply to those Reserves (eg Hillarys Boat Harbour, Ocean Reef Boat Harbour). Local Reserves Local Reserves under DPS2 will be subject to the proposed scheme amendments adopted by Council to include coastal height limits. Policy Committee The proposal to include coastal height provisions and an interim policy was considered by the Policy Committee at its meeting held on 29 November 2005. The Committee resolved to refer to Council the following: 1 Pursuant to section 7 of the Town Planning and Development Act 1928, Council

AMENDS the City of Joondalup District Planning Scheme No 2, for the purpose of advertising for a period of 42 days, as follows:

“1. A new clause 4.17 is added as follows:



4.17.2 On land within 300 metres of the horizontal set back datum

of a coast, as defined in the Western Australian Planning Commission’s Statement of Planning Policy 2.6, buildings shall not exceed 10 metres in height.


4.17.3 Notwithstanding clause 4.5, the Council shall not approve an application for planning approval of a proposed development which does not comply with clause 4.17.2.



substituted:



(ii) a building used other than exclusively for residential purposes,

means the vertical distance measured at any point from the natural ground level to the uppermost part of the building above that point excluding any chimney or vent pipe.”


“natural ground level: (c) means the ground level as formed by nature; or (d) where a level exists other than the ground level as formed by

nature, and that level is the subject of all approvals required by law to authorise that level, means that level.”

2 In accordance with Section 25 of the Town Planning Regulations 1967, prior to the

advertising period commencing, Council FORWARDS the proposed amendment to the Environmental Protection Authority in order to decide if an environmental review is required.

3 That the advertising period for the proposed amendment to DPS2 as outlined in Point

1 and 2 commence following the Christmas and New Year period. 4 In accordance with Clause 8.11.3 of District Planning Scheme No 2 ADOPTS the

draft Policy as per Attachment 4 for the purpose of public advertising for a period of twenty-one (28) days for public comment.

5 NOTES that no amendments to Policy 3-2 Height and Scale of Buildings within a

Residential Area are required. SUBJECT TO the following amendments to the draft policy: 1 Greater emphasis in the document explaining to the community that the scheme

amendment does not apply to MRS Reserve land; 2 inclusion of clarity about the status of other reserve land; 3 enhancement of the sustainability implications statement to include impact on the

environment; 4 in relation to the policy, that the delegation to officers would not apply.”


The draft interim policy has been amended to reflect the above recommendation. DETAILS Issues and options considered: Policy Approach vs Height Controls within DPS2 The issue of coastal building height controls can be progressed via a policy, or by an amendment to DPS2. The policy approach would be in the form of a Local Planning Policy under the provisions of DPS2, however, such a policy does not form part of the DPS2. Clause 8.11.2.2 of DPS2 states:

“A Local Planning Policy is not part of the Scheme and shall not bind the Council in respect of any application for planning approval but the Council shall have due regard to the provisions of any Policy and the objectives which the Policy is designed to achieve before making its decision.”

Council is therefore obliged to have regard to the policy; however, a policy itself does not have any statutory power. An amendment to DPS2 provides a statutory tool to enforce any height controls, thereby potentially providing more certainty in the built form outcome. An amendment to DPS2 can be worded to either: (a) set a coastal height limit that is not open for discretion to be exercised by Council or

the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT).

Advantages: Sets a clear, maximum height limit for development in non-residential zones adjacent to the coast. Provides certainty to the community and developers as to the limit.

Disadvantages: Depending on the height limit chosen, this may be a disincentive for the redevelopment/improvement of a particular site. Does not allow any flexibility in assessing proposals that may otherwise be desirable and appropriate, or have community support.

(b) set a height limit, however, maintain Council and the SAT’s ability to exercise

discretion.

Advantages: Allows Council to grant discretion in regard to the height of a building if considered appropriate. Council can establish the parameters for considering variations to the height limit. Disadvantages: A less definitive approach given the available discretion. A refusal by Council would be open to appeal at the SAT.

(c) set a height limit as per (a) above, however, require a structure plan to be prepared

over a site if a development is proposed to be higher than the specified height limit. Among other things, the structure plan would address the height, scale and bulk of the development. The structure plan process is also subject to community consultation.


Advantages: Allows the structure plan process to be invoked to allow a holistic approach to be development of the site, including the implications of the height of buildings. Disadvantages: a structure plan application may be subject to appeal and therefore the issue of height may be taken out of Council control.

The time needed to finalise an amendment to DPS2 can be in the order of 6 to 9 months given the statutory advertising process, and the required consideration by Council, the WAPC and the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure. A Local Planning Policy must be advertised for public comment for a minimum of 21 days, however, does not required the approval of the WAPC or the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure. Depending on the consultation process, a Local Planning Process can be implemented in approximately 3 months. Council could consider the implementation of a Policy as an interim measure while any amendment to DPS2 is progressed. A Policy (Attachment 4) has been drafted which reflects the intent of the scheme amendment. The current policy in regard to the height of buildings in the Residential zone (Policy 3-2) has been an effective tool in ensuring that a low-rise residential environment is maintained. It is not proposed to alter this policy. Key Sites There are a limited number of non-residential zoned sites in the coastal area. Some of these sites are covered by structure plans that contain provisions in regard to height. The key coastal sites area as follows: Coastal areas (non-residential zonings) not currently covered by a structure plan are: • West Coast Drive corner The Plaza, Sorrento (commercial area) • West Coast Drive corner The Plaza, Sorrento (Sorrento Beach Resort) • Oceanside Promenade (Mullaloo Tavern site), Mullaloo • Sacred Heart College, West Coast Drive, Sorrento • Northshore Country Club, West Coast Drive, Kallaroo Other key areas covered by a structure plan: • Hillarys Structure Plan - West Coast Drive corner Hepburn Ave (‘Harbour Rise’ mixed

use area, 2 storey with possibility of 3 storey height limit) • Iluka Structure Plan ‘Centre Zone’ (3 storey height limit) • Burns Beach Structure Plan ‘Beach Shop’ precinct (no height limit stated) As the provisions of DPS2 does not apply to land reserved under the Metropolitan Region Scheme, any proposed DPS2 amendment would not apply to those areas (eg Hillarys Boat Harbour, Ern Halliday Reserve). Ocean Reef Boat Harbour will be developed in accordance with an approved structure plan. As the site is located on a regional reservation, it is not subject to the provisions of DPS2. As noted previously, Policy 3-2 Height and Scale of Buildings covers all areas zoned ‘Residential’ and the proposed DPS2 amendment would be worded so as to not apply to this zone.


Defining the Coastal Strip The WAPC State Coastal Planning Policy (Statement of Planning Policy No 2.6) defines the coastal strip as land within 300 metres of the horizontal setback datum of the coast. The same definition of the coastal strip can be utilised for the purposes of the proposed DPS2 amendment. This will provide a consistent approach to the issue. Proposed Definitions within DPS2 Any amendment to include height controls within DPS2 will require a definition of how height is measured. The current method of measurement of height differs from the definition contained in the Residential Design Codes and the Model Scheme Text. It is considered preferable to more closely align the DPS2 definition with the R-Code definition to standardise how building height is measured, as follows:


(a) a building used exclusively for residential purposes, has the same meaning

given to it in the Codes; or

(b) a building used other than exclusively for residential purposes, means the vertical distance measured at any point from the natural ground level to the uppermost part of the building above that point excluding any chimney or vent pipe.”

If the above definition is adopted, a definition for ‘natural ground level’ would also need to be included within DPS2. The following definition is adapted from that contained within the Residential Design Codes:

“natural ground level:

(a) means the ground level as formed by nature; or

(b) where a level exists other than the ground level as formed by nature, and that level is the subject of all approvals required by law to authorise that level, means that level.”

Options In considering this proposed amendment to DPS2, Council can: • Not adopt the proposed amendment, • Adopt the amendment for the purposes of public advertising, • Modify the proposed amendment, and adopt the modified amendment for the purposes

of public advertising. • Council also has the option of developing coastal height provisions via a Local

Planning Policy, rather than an amendment to DPS2. Link to Strategic Plan: Key Focus Area: City Development Outcome: The City of Joondalup has well maintained assets and built environment. Objective: To develop and maintain the City of Joondalup’s assets and built environment.


Legislation – Statutory Provisions: Section 7 of the Town Planning and Development Act 1928 (TPD ACT 1928) together with Section 25 of the Town Planning Regulations 1967 enable Local Authorities to amend a Town Planning Scheme and set out the process to be followed (Attachment 3 refers). Should the Council support the initiation of the proposed amendment for the purposes of public advertising, the proposed amendment is required to be referred to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) to decide whether or not a formal environmental review is required. Should the EPA decide that an environmental review is not required, upon the City’s receipt of written confirmation of this from the EPA, the City advertises the proposed amendment for 42 days. Upon closure of the advertising period, the Council considers all submissions received during the advertising period and resolve to either grant final approval to the amendment, with or without modifications, or refuse the amendment. The decision is then forwarded to the WAPC who makes a recommendation to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure. The Minister can either grant final approval to the amendment, with or without further modifications, or refuse the amendment. Clause 8.11 of DPS2 outlines the provisions with respect to the preparation of local planning policies and amendments or additions to policies. Risk Management considerations: Building height along Perth’s coast is a current community issue and there is a risk involved in not addressing or providing direction on the issue. Depending on the height limit determined, there is a risk that development incentives may be reduced as there is there seen to be limited economic return in rejuvenation or development of a particular site. This is also a risk that the WAPC and the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure may not agree to the proposed amendment. However, as indicated in the documents relating to the WAPC proposal to introduce height limits into the State Coastal Policy, local authorities may specify a lower height limit in their town planning schemes. Financial/Budget Implications: There are sufficient funds within operational budgets to cover this statutory planning process. Regional Significance: The coastline within the City of Joondalup area is a regional asset, which attracts both locals and visitors to the area. There has been recent media attention on the various aspects of development on the Perth coast, including the potential height of buildings. The proposed amendment seeks to protect and enhance the coastal asset. Sustainability ImpIications: The development of small community activity hubs near the coast is considered to be desirable, as these will provide facilities that allow the local and wider community to enjoy the coast. These facilities can add to the social wellbeing of the community, provide additional employment opportunities, and potentially provide a choice of housing. There are economic benefits by attracting small businesses to the area, as well as potential indirect economic benefits by attracting visitors to the City of Joondalup.


High-rise development also has environmental implications such as overshadowing of adjoining areas, including beach areas. The visual impact of high-rise development on the coastal strip is an issue, particularly in the context the adjoining low rise development. The potential ‘over-development’ of the coastal strip has implications on the physical environment, and how the coastal strip is perceived. Consultation: A statutory public consultation period of 42 days applies to town planning scheme amendments. Following Council adoption of any proposed amendment, the proposal is forwarded to the EPA, and then advertised for a pubic comment period of 42 days. The public comments are then referred back to Council for consideration. The City’s public participation strategy outlines that public participation (as opposed to public consultation) is appropriate for major town planning scheme reviews and studies, while public consultation is appropriate for scheme amendments. Given that there is community awareness and desire to implement coastal height limits, it is considered that community views will be appropriately addressed through the 42-day consultation process. In regard to Local Planning Policies, once a draft policy is prepared or proposed to be modified, it is required to be advertised in accordance with clause 8.11.3 of DPS2 by way of a notice published once a week for two consecutive weeks in the local newspaper, giving notice where the draft policy may be inspected. The draft policy is also advertised on the Council’s website. The specified period for advertising is not be less than twenty-one (21) days. The Duncraig/Sorrento/Marmion Ratepayers Association has advised the City that its position in regard to the possible redevelopment of the commercial site on West Coast Drive, Sorrento, is that development should be no higher than the existing building, being 9.4m. COMMENT Height Rationale The coastal non-residential zoned areas within the City of Joondalup consist of relatively small nodes, rather than larger areas or continuous strips (eg. Cottesloe or Scarborough). As such, there is a community expectation that the scale of any development at these locations would be compatible with, and not dominate, the adjoining area. There is also an expectation that potential of the commercial sites is recognised, and high quality facilities and services be provided on these sites for the community to enjoy. In the context of the City of Joondalup coastal areas, it is considered that only ‘low-rise’ buildings are appropriate. This is based on providing a balance on the above expectations, as well as not overdeveloping a particular site in terms of development standards. For example, the higher the building, the greater the requirement for the provision of on-site car parking. The table below outlines various implications of different heights. Building Height Implications 12m

May allow 3-4 storey building. Potentially out of character with surrounding (residential) areas. May encourage over development of a site in regard to the applicable development standards (eg car parking) Allows flexibility in building design at 3 storeys.


10-11m Allows 2-storey building, possibly 3 depending on design.

Within +0.5m of maximum residential building heights in coastal structure plan areas (9.5m) Somewhat flexible in terms of building design at 2 storeys, more restrictive at 3 storeys

9m-10m Allows 2 storey building Height akin to a number of coastal structure plan areas (eg residential building height limit of 9.5m)

Proposed Height Limit vs Proposed WAPC Height Limit The WAPC are currently advertising a proposal to include height limits with the State Coastal Policy. This would establish a 5 storey (21m) height limit, with the possibility of 8 storeys (32m) with community support. It is envisaged that any development of the non-residential nodes along the coast within the City of Joondalup would function as small community activity centres, providing low-key commercial development such as cafes and small retailers. It would be appropriate that the height and scale of the buildings reflect this, and it is considered that a 5 storey high limit is not appropriate in the context of the City of Joondalup. It is acknowledged that the any proposed height limit may be subject to debate as to the appropriateness of that particular height. It is proposed that a 10m-height limit be established in the coastal strip. The rationale for the proposed height is that this height could enable, for example, a mixed-use development consisting of ground floor commercial tenancies, with residential above. For comparison, the current building height policy for Residential zoned areas establishes a building envelope with a maximum height of 8.5 metres. If a development exceeds the building envelope a neighbour consultation process is invoked. In other coastal residential areas covered by structure plans (i.e. Hillary’s Harbour Rise, Iluka, Burns Beach) the maximum dwelling height is 9.5m. It is considered that the proposed 10m height limit is akin to a residential scale, however, can provide some flexibility in terms of building design. Regardless of the limit, it is likely that the community in general is seeking more surety as to what building height can be expected in coastal locations. The proposed amendment is required to be advertised for a period of 42 days in line with statutory requirements. All comments on the proposal will be reported back to Council for consideration. Submissions will be considered on planning merit, including (but not restricted to) such aspects as the current zoning and potential uses of the land, the desirability of the coastal area, the compatibility with the surrounding area, and the potential desirability for redevelopment of the existing sites. Interim Policy While an amendment to DPS2 to introduce height controls will give the controls statutory weight, the timeframe to finalise the amendment may take up to 9 months. In the interim, it is recommended that a draft Policy be advertised for public comment. The Policy would contain the same intent as the amendment to DPS2, however, is not a statutory tool. The Policy, however, could be implemented in a shorter time period (approximately 3 months), and would outline Council’s position on the issue. If the interim Policy is adopted, it is considered appropriate to extend the minimum advertising period from 21 days to 28 days due to the Christmas and New Year Period.


ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 Extent of Coastal Area (plan) Attachment 2 Key coastal locations Attachment 3 Scheme Amendment process Attachment 4 Draft Local Planning Policy Attachment 5 Plan showing Regional Reserves VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority MOVED Cmr Anderson, SECONDED Cmr Smith that Council: 1 Pursuant to section 7 of the Town Planning and Development Act 1928, Council

AMENDS the City of Joondalup District Planning Scheme No. 2, for the purpose of advertising for a period of 42 days, as follows:

“1 A new clause 4.17 is added as follows:



4.17.2 On land within 300 metres of the horizontal set back

datum of a coast, as defined in the Western Australian Planning Commission’s Statement of Planning Policy 2.6, buildings shall not exceed 10 metres in height.

4.17.3 Notwithstanding clause 4.5, the Council shall not

approve an application for planning approval of a proposed development which does not comply with clause 4.17.2.



substituted:



(ii) a building used other than exclusively for residential

purposes, means the vertical distance measured at any point from the natural ground level to the uppermost part of the building above that point excluding any chimney or vent pipe.”



“natural ground level: (i) means the ground level as formed by nature; or (ii) where a level exists other than the ground level as formed

by nature, and that level is the subject of all approvals required by law to authorise that level, means that level.”

2 In accordance with Section 25 of the Town Planning Regulations 1967, prior to

the advertising period commencing, FORWARDS the proposed amendment to the Environmental Protection Authority in order to decide if an environmental review is required;

3 UNDERTAKES the advertising period for the proposed amendment to DPS2 as

outlined in Point 1 and 2 to commence following the Christmas and New Year period;

4 In accordance with Clause 8.11.3 of District Planning Scheme No 2 ADOPTS the

draft Policy as per Attachment 4 to Report CJ292-12/05 for the purpose of public advertising for a period of twenty-eight (28) days for public comment;

5 NOTES that no amendments to Policy 3-2 Height and Scale of Buildings within

a Residential Area are required; 6 In the event that Council adopts for final approval ‘Policy 3-4 Height of

Buildings within the Coastal Area (Non-Residential Zones)’ AMENDS the Town Planning Delegations to read that, in relation to the Policy 3-4, no delegation to officers would apply;

7 FORWARDS this Report to the WAPC as the basis of a submission on the

proposed amendments to the State Coastal Planning Policy 2.6. Chief Executive Officer referred to comments he made earlier in the evening in relation to advertising over the holiday period and advised this particular Item would be subject to advertising over the holiday break in order that this matter may be dealt with at the February 2006 Council meeting. Discussion ensued, with congratulations being offered to the Chief Executive Officer and officers for the manner in which this matter has been progressed. The Motion was Put and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (5/0) Appendix 27 refers To access this attachment on electronic document, click here: Attach27brf061205.pdf



CJ293 - 12/05 LEGAL SERVICES TENDER RFT 02-05/06 – [58264] WARD: All RESPONSIBLE Mr Garry Hunt DIRECTOR: Office of CEO CJ051206_BRF.DOC:ITEM 31 PURPOSE To consider the process involved for the calling of the Legal Services Tender RFT 02-05/06 and the proposed arrangements for recalling tenders. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The report discusses the administrative error in regard to the Provision of Legal Services tender, the reasons for rejecting the tenders, and the actions taken to rectify the problem. It is recommended that the appropriate course of action to take is to rejects all tenders and recall the tender in January 2006. BACKGROUND The City currently has a four panel of legal firms that provide legal advice to the City when needed under contract 046-00/01 Provision of Legal Services. The contract was due to expire on 30 November 2005. As a consequence, the City called for a new tender on 26 October 2005 for the Provision of Legal Services – RFT 02-05/06. DETAILS Due to an administrative error concerning the dates of the tender, it is considered appropriate to recall the tender. While the tender advertisement stated that the close of tenders was 10 November 2005, the tender documentation stated 9 November 2005. A total of six tenders were received. The tenders were opened on 9 November 2005. Regulation 15 of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996, requires that there is to be at least 14 days between the calling of a tender and the closing of a tender. The 14 day requirement was not met due to the inconsistency in the dates of the tender document and the advertisement and the tender opening. All of the tenderers and the panel firms were contacted on 23 November 2005 advising them of the administrative error and in the case of the panel firms, requesting a further extension of the existing Provision of Legal Services contract to 7 February 2006. All existing tenderers have agreed to extend their contract to 7 February 2006. In accordance with the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996, the details of all tenders received have been held securely given the new RFT document for the provision of legal services will use the same assessment criteria as included in RFT 02-05/06.


As the recall coincides with the Christmas break, the most appropriate course of action is to advertise for tender in late January 2006. Link to Strategic Plan: Organisational development – To manage the business in a responsible and accountable manner. Provide fair and transparent decision-making processes. Legislation – Statutory Provisions: Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996. Risk Management considerations: In the event the City was to appoint one or more firms, the validity of the decision could be challenged. Financial/Budget Implications: Not Applicable. Policy Implications: Not Applicable. Regional Significance: Not Applicable. Sustainability Implications: Not Applicable. Consultation: Not Applicable. COMMENT The Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996 regulation 15 requires that there be a minimum 14 day timeframe between the calling of a tender and the close of a tender. This did not occur in this situation. As a result, the tender procedure did not comply with the legislative requirement. In order to maintain equity in the process, the City decided that the appropriate course of action would be to recommend that the tenders be rejected in accordance with regulation 18 of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996, and a new tender be called. In the interim, while the City was required to place the current report before Council, the existing contract for the Provision of Legal Services was to expire on 30 November 2005, and the City therefore needed to write to each of the panel firms and request an extension of the existing contract. The arrangements with each firm have all been renewed to 7 February 2006. It is recommended that the appropriate course of action is for Council to reject the tenders and for the tender process to be recalled in January 2006.


ATTACHMENTS Nil. VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority MOVED Cmr Smith, SECONDED Cmr Clough that Council AGREES to reject all tenders received for the Legal Services Tender RFT 02-05/06 in accordance with regulation 18 of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996. The Motion was Put and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (5/0)

Disclosure of interest affecting impartiality Name/Position Cmr S Smith Item No/Subject CJ294-12/05 – Response to the Request for Submissions by the

Public Accounts Committee on the Inquiry into Local Government Accountability in Western Australia

Nature of interest Interest that may affect impartiality Extent of Interest Cmr Smith undertakes contract work for WALGA.

CJ294 - 12/05 RESPONSE TO THE REQUEST FOR SUBMISSIONS

BY THE PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE ON THE INQUIRY INTO LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA

WARD: All RESPONSIBLE Mr Garry Hunt DIRECTOR: Office of the CEO CJ051206_BRF.DOC:ITEM 32 PURPOSE To consider the City’s response to the request for submissions by the Public Accounts Committee on the Inquiry into Local Government Accountability in Western Australia. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The report discusses the terms of reference of the Inquiry, the relevant background information of the Inquiry and the WALGA response to the Inquiry that is proposed to be supported by the City.


BACKGROUND The Public Accounts Committee commenced an Inquiry into Local Government Accountability in Western Australia on 17 August 2005. The terms of reference of the Public Accounts Committee are to examine and report on: 1 Current accountability mechanisms for local government in Western Australia,

including finance, probity and performance; 2 the capacity of the Department of Local Government and Regional Development to

examine local government finance, probity and performance issues; 3 whether the State Auditor General should have a role in local government audit

processes; and 4 other matters deemed relevant by the Committee. Written submissions were requested from interested parties with the closing date for submissions being 16 December 2005. DETAILS The Public Accounts Committee has been established under the Standing Orders of the Legislative Assembly of the Parliament of Western Australia. It is not a Government Committee, it is a bipartisan parliamentary committee that can initiate its own inquiries. Its mandate is to inquire into and report to the Legislative Assembly on any proposal, mandate or thing it considers necessary, connected with the receipt and expenditure of public moneys. It considers whether the objectives of public expenditure are being achieved, or may be achieved more efficiently. The Inquiry into Local Government Accountability was established on 17 August 2005 and it is expected that the report to the Legislative Assembly will be handed down in April 2006. The Committee resolved to inquire into local government accountability after learning that local government accountability measures were not as comprehensive as those applied to expenditure by state or commonwealth governments. 1 WALGA Submission In response to the terms of reference of the Inquiry into Local Government Accountability in Western Australia, WALGA decided to make a formal submission. A Questions asked of Local Governments In completing the response, local governments were requested to provide feedback to WALGA on the following questions: What specific legislative or regulatory accountability/compliance requirements do you find overly onerous or reasonably consider to be irrelevant? Respondents tended to support a compliance regime proportionate to the level of risk, ie a lesser level of compliance should be attached to smaller local government operations. The most commonly referenced compliance burden was the lack of indexation to the $50,000 tender threshold, which causes local governments to follow tender procedures for expenditure decisions which should not require that level of process.


What specific changes should be made to the role, operations and resources of the Department of Local Government & Regional Development? Most of the respondents did not want changes to the role and operations of the Department, although recognised a resource gap, in terms of the Department’s capacity to support Local Government in meeting their compliance obligations. The Department should focus on support and guidance rather than regulation and compliance. Do you support the re-establishment of the positions of “Local Government Inspector” within the Department of Local Government & Regional Development? Approximately 65% of respondents supported the establishment by the Department of “outreach” positions to serve as direct advisors to CEOs and Councils in understanding their compliance and operational responsibilities. No real support for interventionist or punitive approach based on “inspection” of Local Governments. This would be of minimal benefit to the City of Joondalup. Is there any real threat in involving the Auditor General’s Office in the Local Government audit process, and if so what specifically concerns you? Respondents were concerned more with what the Auditor General’s role would be if involved in the process, rather than whether or not the Auditor General should be involved. B Response to the Terms of Reference In response to the terms of reference the WALGA view was:

I. Current accountability mechanisms for local government in Western Australia, including finance, probity and performance

WALGA views the current mechanisms are adequate in terms of the required minimum standards of compliance. WALGA would prefer to see the promotion of best practice and professional development of elected members as a means of enhancing probity, performance and financial accountability, rather than more regulation. Smaller local governments are perhaps unnecessarily saddled with accountability and reporting mechanisms that are irrelevant to their local community needs. The impact of the loss of the Local Government Development Fund requires review as the fund enabled the industry to deliver low cost initiatives to the sector.

II. The capacity of the Department of Local Government and Regional Development to

examine local government finance, probity and performance issues The Department currently utilises a compliance return to assess the compliance by local governments. There is no annual benchmarking process that is centrally managed and no capacity to provide a snapshot of the industry performance. The Department should consider providing support to Local Government through the regular provision of reports that provide industry analysis and emerging trends.


III. Whether the State Auditor General should have a role in local government audit processes

The role of the Auditor General should be in contributing to the review of the Audit Standard rather than in the direct administration of Local Government audits, unless clear advantage can be demonstrated. The WALGA conclusions were as follows:

• Any change to Local Government auditing and/or accountability requirements should be subject to a cost benefit analysis.

• There should be scope within such review for Councils to determine locally

appropriate reporting above any minimum standards.

• The Department should be resourced to provide outreach position to assist and mentor best practice and compliance.

• Indexation of the $50,000 tender threshold should be addressed as a priority.

• The imposition of regulation and compliance regimes should be balanced against an

assessment of relative risk, and the appropriateness of different regulatory and compliance requirements for differing levels of risk be considered as an alternative to the application of generic controls.

2 The McIntyre Report The McIntyre Report into the City of Joondalup made the following recommendations in relation to issues of compliance and reporting mechanisms: Recommendation 8

• A statutory body, such as the Local Government Commission proposed by this Report, should be responsible for the appointment and supervision of all CEOs for all local authorities within the State. Such a statutory body would be obliged to consult with the elected Council of each local government as to the specific requirements of the district. The statutory body should be accorded powers similar to those given to the Public Sector Standards Commissioner under the Public Sector Management Act 1994 and should have power to set salaries and allowances similar to the powers set out under the Salaries and Allowances Act 1975.

The City responded to this recommendation at its meeting held on 14 November 2005: It is agreed that procedures for appointment and matters covered in employment contracts need to be tightened up. An alternative process to that proposed might be that Regulations could be enacted to cover matters associated with the selection and appointment of CEOs and contracts of employment. This would assist the City and the local government industry by providing a statutory framework for these matters. Recommendation 9

• A Local Government Commission should be established to appoint and supervise CEO’s and assume the functions of the Minister and Executive Director under Part 8 of the Local Government Act 1995 with power to perform the functions of a Commissioner under Part 2, Division 7 of the LGA and the functions of the Advisory Board under Part 2, Division 8 of the LGA.


The City responded to this recommendation at its meeting held on 14 November 2005 – There are powers already under the Act that allow for the Minister and the Executive Director under Part 8 of the Local Government Act 1995 to step in and investigate matters before they require the suspension of Council. (A matter referred to in the Report of Chapter 3, part 7). The potential for significant interference by a third party in the administrative affairs of the local government may be disruptive and unwarranted unless in serious circumstances. Training for CEOs and performance appraisals by Councils submitted to the Minister for review may allow for the accountability of the CEO without the disruption. It is envisaged that the Minister would review the performance appraisals and highlight any issues that might need to be addressed. The Minister may then recommend to Councils the development of best practice to deal with such matters. This proposal would maintain the autonomy of local governments to make their own decisions. Recommendation 10

• There should be established a Local Government Assistance Authority to perform the present role of the Capacity Building Division of the DLGRD and co-operatively manage or assist in providing the educational and assistance roles being provided by voluntary local government industry associations to local governments.

The City responded to this recommendation at its meeting held on 14 November 2005 – Mandatory training of elected members would be useful. At the moment limited training is provided that does not fully prepare elected members for the rigour of local government. Mediation for dispute resolution by an Authority would also be of use. To date WALGA and LGMA provide a significant amount of educational assistance. The City is also in the process of reviewing its induction processes for elected members. While the Public Accounts Commission has suggested the possibility of the State Auditor General performing a role in local government audit processes, the McIntyre Inquiry has also recommended to the Minister that a further body, the Local Government Commission be established to oversee some governance functions of local government. Link to Strategic Plan: The Public Accounts Committee Inquiry into Local Government Accountability in Western Australia has implications for the City’s strategic outcome that the City provides a sustainable and accountable business. Legislation – Statutory Provisions: Not Applicable. Risk Management considerations: Not Applicable. Financial/Budget Implications: Not Applicable.


Policy Implications: Not Applicable. Regional Significance: Not Applicable. Sustainability Implications: Not Applicable. Consultation: Not Applicable. COMMENT A local government already has a number of external bodies to which it must answer to in terms of compliance. Notwithstanding the provisions of Part 8 of the Local Government Act 1995, a local government must submit to the Department an Annual Compliance Return, disclose all Public Interest Disclosures to the relevant governing body, comply with EEO legislation, submit a statement to the Disability Services Commissioner on matters of access, comply with financial audits each year, include in its Annual Report its compliance with clause 7 of the National Competition Policy, and the conduct of internal self regulating audits to name but a few. There are already a number of external agencies requiring and monitoring local government compliance and the establishment of more agencies may lead to the overlap of functions and reporting mechanisms that may be viewed as inefficient. That the City supports the position taken by WALGA in its response to the Local Government Accountability Inquiry as contained in Attachment 1 to this report. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 WALGA Response to the Local Government Accountability Inquiry. VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority MOVED Cmr Anderson, SECONDED Cmr Clough that the City SUPPORTS the position taken by WALGA in its response to the Local Government Accountability Inquiry as contained in Attachment 1 to Report CJ294-12/05 and advises the Public Accounts Committee in writing of this position. The Motion was Put and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (5/0) Appendix 28 refers To access this attachment on electronic document, click here: Attach28agn131205.pdf



REPORT OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CJ295-12/05 SITE ACQUISITION - WORKS DEPOT – [80513]

[58498] WARD: All RESPONSIBLE Mr Garry Hunt DIRECTOR: Office of the CEO CJ051206_BRF.DOC:ITEM 33 PURPOSE To consider the site options available for the development of the proposed new works depot. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City has been operating its works depot from the City of Wanneroo depot in Ashby since 27 June 2000 and from a smaller site on Winton Road Joondalup. Negotiations with LandCorp since late 2002 have been on the basis of securing a 4.0 hectare site for the purpose of developing a new depot within the City’s boundaries. The Hodges Drive site was identified as a potential site. Over the next two years negotiations led to the drafting and forwarding to the City an unexecuted contract of sale. The proposed purchase was then advertised and comments from the public were invited. The City received advice from LandCorp on 24 September 2004 that the delay in finalising the contract of sale had highlighted a complication for LandCorp in that it required a current valuation (less than 3 months old) to support any sale contract. Accordingly, LandCorp had sought a review of the $2.8 million valuation of the site. The outcome was an increase in value to $4.2 million based on highest and best use for the land. Over the following six months negotiations with LandCorp resulted in a joint valuation being obtained with the value of the land being $4.6 million based on highest and best use. As the owner of the land, LandCorp will only value the land at its highest possible use regardless of its actual use. The table below summarises the history of the valuation for the Hodges Drive site: Date Valuation Site Comment 6 September 2002 $1,900,000 3.627 ha City’s initial valuation 25 November 2002 $2,800,000 4.0 ha LandCorp’s initial valuation 17 June 2004 $2,800,000 4.0 ha Unexecuted contract of sale received 3 August 2004 $2,800,000 4.0 ha Business Plan advertised 24 September 2004 $2,800,000 4.0 ha LandCorp advise site to be revalued 7 October 2004 $4,200,000 4.0 ha LandCorp’s updated value 12 October 2004 $2,800,000 4.0 ha Comments for Business Plan close 23 November 2004 $2,500,000 4.0 ha City’s updated valuation 14 December 2004 $2,800,000 4.0 ha Council decision to purchase site 29 June 2005 $4,600,000 4.0 ha Joint valuation 27 September 2005 $4,600,000 4.0 ha Date of expiry for joint valuation amount


Over the past three months the requirements for the proposed depot have been reviewed identifying that a site of 2.5 to 3.0 hectares will be suitable. A review of available sites either within or in close proximity to the City has revealed that the two most suitable sites are the proposed Hodges Drive site and a Water Corporation site located on Ocean Reef Road that forms part of the Water Corporation waste treatment site known as Beenyup. The land is currently vested with Water Corporation. Water Corporation has advised that they are looking for a tenant for the proposed site however are not prepared to transfer the vesting or sell the site to the City. The Normalisation Agreement was agreed in October 2001 for works negotiated between the City and LandCorp that effectively completed LandCorp’s obligations for city development. The Agreement was signed by the City and LandCorp in February 2003, but was not executed by the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure until June 2003 during a formal handover function. The Normalisation agreement made no allowance for the purchase of the Hodges Drive site. The agreement did not include a payment schedule and made no allowance for interest to be paid by LandCorp. In negotiating payment details the matter of the proposed land purchase was discussed and it was agreed that the $2.8 million would be offset against the cost of the land. The unexpected lengthy delays that have been experienced have seen the value of the land increase beyond the original valuation of $2.8 million. Legal advice indicates that without an executed contract of sale the City does not have any basis to compel LandCorp to transfer the subject land to the City for an amount of $2.8 million. Negotiations with LandCorp over the past year have also involved the City’s claim to interest on the Normalisation funds that could be offset against the cost of the proposed land purchase. In the interests of progressing the purchase of land deal LandCorp, on 12 August 2005, offered to deduct an allowance for interest totalling $155,500. Further representations to LandCorp have resulted in LandCorp, on 22 November 2005 offering to pay the City $648,098 in foregone interest along with the $2.8 million Normalisation payment at the end of December 2005. Although the value of the Normalisation Agreement is $5.24 million the interest has been calculated on $4.7 million from the date the agreement was signed to the date of the $1.9 million payment and $2.8 million to 31 December 2005 being the date of the next payment. The $540,000 payment is subject to conditions related to the Wanneroo Basketball Association (WBA) lease. The following table summarises the Normalisation Agreement details: Date Event October 2001 Valuation of works agreed at $5,240,000 February 2003 City and LandCorp execute agreement June 2003 Minister executes agreement June 2004 LandCorp transfer first payment of $1,900,000 4 August 2005 City formally requests payment for interest on agreement funds 12 August 2005 LandCorp offers City $155,500 subject to land being purchased 14 November 2005 City again requests payment for agreement funds 25 November 2005 LandCorp offers a payment of $648,098 for forgone interest 31 December 2005 LandCorp to pay $2,800,000 plus interest 23 December 2007 LandCorp to make final payment of $540,000 subject to conditions

related to WBA lease


It is recommended that Council: 1 DETERMINES that the Water Corporation site of approximately 2.5 hectares known

as Beenyup on Ocean Reef Road Craigie is the preferred site for the proposed works depot;

2 AUTHORISES the Chief Executive Officer to negotiate the terms and conditions of

the lease with the Water Corporation and to finalise and advertise a business plan inviting public comment;

3 NOTES that LandCorp has agreed to pay the City $648,098 in relation to interest on

the Normalisation Agreement payments BACKGROUND The City has been operating its works depot from the City of Wanneroo depot in Ashby since 27 June 2000 and from a smaller site on Winton Road Joondalup. Negotiations with LandCorp since late 2002 have been on the basis of securing a 4.0 hectare site for the purpose of developing a new depot within the City’s boundaries. The Hodges Drive site was identified as a potential site. Over the next two years negotiations led to the drafting and forwarding to the City an unexecuted contract of sale. The proposed purchase was advertised in August 2004 and comments from the public were invited. The City received advice from LandCorp on 24 September 2004 that the delay in finalising the contract of sale had highlighted a complication for LandCorp in that it required a current valuation (less than 3 months old) to support any sale contract. Accordingly, LandCorp had sought a review of the $2.8 million valuation of the site. The outcome was an increase in value to $4.2 million. The City sought an independent valuation using the same valuation brief originally agreed between the City and LandCorp. The valuation was received on 25 November 2004 and valued the site at $2.5 million. The difference in values was due to the valuation briefs. The City used the original agreed brief whereas LandCorp modified the brief to ensure a higher return. However it was acknowledged that as a proposed condition of the sale, LandCorp would bear the full cost of constructing a bridge to access the site at $1.5 million. On this basis, the City considered the $2.8 million purchase price previously agreed to be reasonable and that LandCorp should honour the $2.8 million purchase price. Negotiations have been ongoing between LandCorp and the City since December 2002 when Council resolved in relation to the Joondalup Normalisation Agreement to authorise the Chief Executive Officer to negotiate with LandCorp for either cash contribution, or partial cash and partial in-kind contribution by way of the transfer of land owned by LandCorp to the City for the purpose of housing the City of Joondalup’s planned works depot. From that date negotiations continued between the two parties for the terms of the contract of sale, including vehicular access to the site and the relocation of powerlines going through the site. This necessarily involved third parties including Main Roads, Western Power and the Public Transport Authority. The fact that payment by the City for the depot site was to take place in lieu of a cash payment from LandCorp to the value of $2.8 million as part of the Joondalup Normalisation Agreement, meant that a contract of sale could not be entered into until all matters relating to the Normalisation Agreement had been resolved. This included the requirement to obtain a private ruling from the Australian Taxation Office on whether or not GST was applicable to the cash or in kind components of the Normalisation Agreement. This process commenced in September 2003 and a ruling was obtained in March 2004 from the Australian Taxation Office that none of the transactions relating to the agreement formed a taxable supply.


Contract of sale documents were received from LandCorp on 17 June 2004, which confirmed the purchase price of $2.8 million for the depot site. The requirement for the City to undertake a business plan for the acquisition of the depot site was given consideration at the time the purchase was negotiated with LandCorp. At this time it was deemed not required to comply with the provision of Section 3.59 of the Local Government Act 1995 and the Local Government Act (Functions and General) Regulations 1996, as the City was acquiring the land solely for the purposes of the works depot and no part of the site was to be disposed (sell or lease as defined in S3.58) to a third party. The City sought legal advice clarifying the requirement or otherwise for a business plan for the acquisition of the depot site. This advice referred to Regulation 8 (1) of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996 which provides that a land transaction is an exempt land transaction for the purposes of section 3.59 if the local government enters into it “without intending to produce profit to itself and without intending that another person will be sold, or given joint or exclusive use of, all or any of the land involved in the transaction.” The City’s solicitor noted that the City’s instructions were that, if the land was purchased, the present proposal was that it would be used for a works depot. The City received advice that this factor alone did not satisfy regulation 8 (1). If in purchasing the land, the City was making an investment and, in the fullness of time, the land may be sold at a profit, then regulation 8 would not apply. On this basis, at the Council meeting of 20 July 2004 it was recommended that the City take a conservative approach and the Council approved a business plan to be advertised on the proposed land purchase and concept design for a period of 42 days to enable public comment (C46-07/04 refers). LandCorp were advised as soon as the City became aware of this matter and the public comment process commenced immediately it was possible to do so. It is understood that clause 2.3 of LandCorp’s Procedures Manual requires that “valuations for active projects shall be reviewed as necessary depending upon the market conditions that prevail. Stock that remains unsold after 6 months should be revalued.” However it was the City’s contention that the depot site had effectively been committed since Council’s resolution of 29 April 2003 to accept LandCorp’s offer for the City to purchase a fully serviced site of 4 ha for an amount of $2.8 million and authorise the CEO to negotiate the contract of sale with LandCorp (CJ107-04/03 refers). Ongoing negotiations with LandCorp resulted in a joint valuation being obtained with the value of the land being $4.6 million or $115/sqm. This value assumes that the power lines have been relocated prior to purchase of the land, which was not the previous instruction. The project budget of $11.0 million allowed a sum of $415,000 for the relocation of the power lines. A number of factors can be identified as having a major impact on the valuation being:

Land Use Previous valuations were based on a land use of “Depot with the potential for Bulk Retail/Showroom/Service Industry”. LandCorp wanted the land use as “Bulk Retail/Showroom/Service Industry”. In June 2005 LandCorp agreed to include “Depot” in the description however the valuation is based on the highest and best use of the site being Bulk Retail/Showroom.


Current Sales Evidence The most recent similar sales indicate a sqm rate of $200 to $250 (Clarkson, Midland, Malaga) would be appropriate for the site. Access and Site Conditions Due to current indications from Main Roads advising that access or egress to Hodges Drive and the Freeway is not allowed and due to the topography of the site the value of the land is reduced by around 50% to $115/sqm.

DETAILS The matter was last considered by the Council at its meeting held on 30 August 2005 (CJ176-08/05 refers) when it was resolved that Council: 1 REFERS back the report to the Officers for further clarification of issues surrounding

the Normalisation Agreement; 2 ENDORSES the action of the Chief Executive Officer to investigate alternative sites; 3 REQUESTS the Chief Executive Officer to report on options for alternative sites as

soon as practical; 4 NOTES that a Business Plan will be advertised seeking public comment following the

identification of an alternative site. Prior to investigating alternative sites a review of the depot requirements was undertaken which revealed that a 2.5 hectare site would be suitable for current needs. Based on this information a review of available sites was undertaken identifying the proposed site on Hodges Drive and the Water Corporation site on Ocean Reef Road that forms part of the Water Corporation’s waste treatment plant known as Beenyup were the most appropriate sites. It is noted that Edgewater Quarry was raised during the previous Business Plan process as a possible alternative site. However, due to complications in the way the land is classified, being a mix of City owned land, 20A reserves and reserves for recreation, its location adjacent to schools and residential amenities, potential delays and other considerations should the City attempt to purchase the site, it is considered that this location is not a sustainable or suitable option for the City. The process required to develop a depot at the Edgewater Quarry site would be time consuming and without certainty that land dealings and rezoning could be achieved. Water Corporation have advised that they are looking for a suitable tenant for the Beenyup site however are not prepared to sell or transfer the vesting of the site to the City. Water Corporation has prepared a draft lease for the site for the City’s consideration. The site has been valued based on the proposed lease and use of the site at $8.00/sqm. The lease of 2.5 hectares will initially cost the City $200,000 per annum. The City currently pays the City of Wanneroo $80,810 per annum for the Ashby lease. The Ashby site has also been identified as having operational inefficiencies of $536,000 per annum, which are expected to increase over time.


At the same time further discussions have been held with LandCorp who has advised that they require resolution of the land purchase issue by the end of December 2005. LandCorp have also advised that the purchase of a site smaller than the proposed 4.0 hectares could be considered. Should a smaller site be preferred at Hodges Drive a 3.0 hectare site would be required due to the topography of the site and the requirement for an access road. The Beenyup site includes the use of an access road adjacent to the lease site. Beenyup Site The proposed Beenyup site was previously used by the Water Corporation as a depot and over the past couple of years by a demolition company. There are a number of buildings and sheds on the site that vary in condition but would require substantial works if retained. The lease offered by Water Corporation is a standard commercial land lease as the existing buildings have no commercial value. The term would be for a fixed period of 21 years, with no further options. Initial rent would be fixed for two years (first year rent-free) followed by annual CPI adjustments except after 6 years and every 5 years thereafter when reviews to market would apply. The City would also be responsible for all related outgoings. Water Corporation has agreed to conduct an environmental survey of the site and take any action required to remediate any contamination including removal of any asbestos. Water Corporation has reserved the right not to proceed with the lease for a depot should the cost of removal not be financially viable. It is estimated that $4.0 to $4.5 million will be required to develop the site to a suitable condition. This estimate can only be confirmed once a more detailed assessment of the existing building can be undertaken and a concept plan is developed. Designs for this site would be undertaken based on a building life of 20 years. Issues and options considered: A review of available sites for the proposed works depot has identified two options being the purchase of the Hodges Drive site and the lease of the Beenyup site. The attached Base NPV indicates that the lease option is the preferred financial option however the City would not own the land and would have to negotiate a new lease at the expiry of the proposed lease or find an alternative location. Both these sites are located close to the centre of the City. A further option would be to negotiate the purchase of a 3.0 hectare site near Hodges Drive. Again the Base NPV indicates that the lease option is still the preferred option. Staying at the current Ashby site is not a long-term option. The construction of residential properties adjacent to the boundary of the City’s leased area will hasten the push to close the depot operation. It is noted that Edgewater Quarry was raised during the previous Business Plan process as a possible alternative site. However, due to complications in the way the land is classified, being a mix of City owned land, 20A reserves and reserves for recreation, its location adjacent to schools and residential amenities, potential delays and other considerations should the City attempt to purchase the site, it is considered that this location is not a sustainable or suitable option for the City. The process required to develop a depot at the Edgewater Quarry site would be time consuming and without certainty that land dealings and rezoning could be achieved. The City has also investigated other sites within the City or within close proximity of the City over the past few years however no sites were pursued.


Link to Strategic Plan: Development of the a new works depot will be consistent with each of the four key focus areas of the City’s Strategic Plan as follows: Caring for the Environment: The concept plan for the new depot has been designed taking into account the latest Environmentally Sensitive Design principles where the Ashby depot is 30 years old and is in need of a major overhaul. Community Wellbeing: The development of a new depot will assist in providing a more efficient and environmentally friendly service to the community. City Development: A new depot within the City boundaries will encourage local employment and economic development. Organisational Development: Manage the development to provide a maximum return on the investment to benefit the City’s ratepayers and community by the reduction in operational inefficiencies that have been identified with the depot in Ashby. Legislation – Statutory Provisions: The proposed lease transaction is an exempt land transaction however it is considered appropriate to comply with the provisions of Section 3.59 of the Local Government Act 1995 and the Local Government Act (Functions and General) Regulations 1996. Risk Management considerations: At some stage in the future the City will be moving out of the Ashby site and without an available parcel of land, acquiring a location within the City would be difficult. The current lease with the City of Wanneroo expires in June 2007. If the Hodges Drive land was purchased and the City was unable to commence construction until the bridge was constructed, funds required for construction could continue to increase. Additionally as time goes by without the execution of a contract of sale the value of the site continues to increase. Operational inefficiencies identified at the current Ashby site continue to increase and if land cannot be found within the City’s boundaries these inefficiencies are likely to increase. The lease of the Beenyup site is for a fixed period of 21 years. At that point negotiations with Water Corporation would be required if the City wanted to remain on the site or a new site may be required. Additionally Water Corporation may determine that the cost of any required remediation on the site is not financially viable to continue with the proposed lease to the City.


Financial/Budget Implications: Hodges Drive – Original Project Estimates - endorsed by Council on 20 July 2004

ITEM Original Budget 4 Hectare Site

$ Building Works (rate per sq. metre) 2,665,000Communication cabling, IT items, Two Way Radio and Reticulation Control.

150,000

Gateway Allowance (strategic location) 250,000Site Works (significant cross fall) 2,970,000Environmentally Sensitive Design Allowance 200,000Escalation (to July 04) 200,000Escalation Premium due to Market Condition 150,000Consultant Fees 600,000Land Acquisition 2,800,000FF&E (furniture, fittings and equipment) 600,000HV Relocation 415,000TOTAL: 11,000,000

Should the City proceed with the purchase of a 4.0 hectare site and the development as per the concept plan the estimated cost would be approximately $15.0 million depending on when site works could commence and subject to the land being revalued. This increased budget estimate includes the current increase in land and construction costs. Should the City not proceed an alternative site will need to be found and a review of the required funding would be undertaken. Should the City wish to negotiate the purchase of a 3.0 hectare site it is estimated that the total cost of the project would be approximately $13.5 million. The City has spent approximately $165,000 to date on this project. Should the concept design that has been developed and approved by Council not be compatible with an alternative site a new concept design would need to be developed. It is estimated that a new concept design and due diligence requirements would cost in the order of $100,000. Based on the construction cost estimates for the Hodges Drive site it is estimated that $4.0 to 4.5 million will be required to construct a depot at the Beenyup site however this cannot be confirmed until a formal building assessment has been completed. The lease fee for the site will commence at $200,000 increasing annually to CPI with a market valuation review in year six and each five years after. The City currently pays a lease fee of $80,810 to the City of Wanneroo for the current depot site in Ashby. Policy implications: Not Applicable. Regional Significance: Not Applicable.


Sustainability implications: Remaining at Ashby depot for a period of at least ten years is not considered to be a sustainable solution to the requirements of the City. The City of Wanneroo has advised that they have a ten-year plan to remain at their current location. With residential development reaching the southern boundary of the Ashby depot site it is a matter of time before complaints are received about noise levels. Ensuring compliance with noise requirements is the responsibility of the occupier of a site not the owner. The new depot has been designed taking into account the latest Environmentally Sensitive Design principles where the Ashby depot is 30 years old and is in need of a major overhaul. The Ashby site has been identified as having operational inefficiencies of $536,000 per annum, which are likely to increase over time. The Ashby site has no potential for expansion to meet future needs unless the City of Wanneroo move out of their site. The proposed Hodges Drive depot incorporated the current requirements of the City and has been designed to meet the future changing needs of the City. At some stage in the future the City would be moving out of the Ashby site and without an available parcel of land, a new location within the City may not be available. The proposed site will consolidate the current depot operations that are currently split. The current lease with the City of Wanneroo expires in June 2007. Consultation: A business plan was originally advertised in The West Australian and Joondalup Community Newspaper with a closing date of 16 September 2004. Following a request from the community, the public comment period was extended to 12 October 2004. At the close of comment period, eight submissions were received. The major comments were that the depot should not be built on the Hodges Drive site, an $11.0 million depot was too expensive and that alternative sites should be investigated. A new Business Plan will be developed based and advertised for comment by the public early in the new year notwithstanding that it is arguable that the transaction would be an exempt land transaction. COMMENT Alternative sites have been investigated with the only available suitable site identified as the Water Corporation site known as Beenyup. Water Corporation has advised that the site is not for sale however it is available for the City to lease for a period of 21 years. Cost comparisons between the two options indicate that the Beenyup site is the preferred option. Both sites are located close to the centre of the City. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 Base NPV comparison between Beenyup lease and Hodges Drive

purchase. Attachment 2 Council Reports CJ300-12/04 and CJ176-08/05 VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority


MOVED Cmr Clough, SECONDED Cmr Smith that Council: 1 DETERMINES that the Water Corporation site of approximately 2.5 hectares

known as Beenyup on Ocean Reef Road Craigie is the preferred site for the proposed works depot;

2 AUTHORISES the Chief Executive Officer to negotiate the terms and conditions

of the lease with the Water Corporation and to finalise and advertise a business plan inviting public comment;

3 NOTES that LandCorp has agreed to pay the City $648,098 in relation to interest

on the Normalisation Agreement payments. Discussion ensued. The Motion was Put and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (5/0) Appendix 29 refers To access this attachment on electronic document, click here: Attach29agn131205.pdf Manager, Audit and Executive Services and Project Officer left the Chamber, the time being 2106 hrs. Disclosure of financial interest Name/Position Mr Garry Hunt – Chief Executive Officer Item No/Subject C70-12/05 – Minutes of the CEO Performance Review Committee

Meetings held on 13 October 2005 and 14 November 2005 Nature of interest Financial Extent of Interest Mr Hunt is employed as CEO.

Name/Position Mr Peter Schneider – Acting Director, Infrastructure Services Item No/Subject C70-12/05 – Minutes of the CEO Performance Review Committee

Meeting held on 13 October 2005 and 14 November 2005 Nature of interest Interest that may affect impartiality Extent of Interest Due to nature of employment relationship with the CEO.

Chief Executive Officer left the Chamber, the time being 2106 hrs.



C70-12/05 MINUTES OF THE CEO PERFORMANCE REVIEW

COMMITTEE MEETINGS HELD ON 13 OCTOBER 2005 AND 14 NOVEMBER 2005 – [74574]

WARD: All RESPONSIBLE Mr Peter Schneider DIRECTOR: Corporate Services PURPOSE To submit the minutes of the CEO Performance Review Committee meetings to Council for noting and endorsement of the recommendations of the Committee. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Meetings of the CEO Performance Review Committee were held on:

13 October 2005; 14 November 2005

It is recommended that Council notes the minutes of the Committee meetings and endorses its recommendations. BACKGROUND At its meeting held on 7 June 2005 (Item CJ104-06/05 refers) Council established the Chief Executive Officer Performance Review Committee, comprising the Joint Commissioners, and set the Committee’s terms of reference as follows: “(a) Review the Chief Executive Officer's performance in accordance with the

appropriate provisions contained within the Chief Executive Officer's Employment Contract;

(b) Prepare and table the concluded report, in accordance with the appropriate

provisions within the Chief Executive Officer's Employment Contract to the Council at a Council meeting for consideration and actioning;

(c) Review the Chief Executive Officer's performance on an on-going basis as

and when deemed necessary in accordance with the appropriate provisions contained within the Chief Executive Officer's Employment contract;

(d) Review the Key Performance Indicators to be met by the Chief Executive

Officer.” At its meeting held on 9 August 2005 (Item C46-08/05 refers) Council resolved to expand the terms of reference for the Chief Executive Officer - Performance Review Committee be expanded to include:


(a) Review the Chief Executive Officer's remuneration package, in accordance with the appropriate provisions within the Chief Executive Officer's Employment Contract;

(b) Review the Chief Executive Officer's Employment Contract and make

recommendations to Council in relation to varying the contract as and when necessary.”

DETAILS The CEO Performance Review Committee met with the CEO on 13 October 2005 and conducted a facilitated workshop to develop a draft set of KPIs for refinement and review at a subsequent meeting. At the meeting of the CEO Performance Review Committee held on 14 November 2005, the following motions were moved:

“That the CEO Performance Review Committee RECOMMENDS that Council AGREES to the Key Performance Indicators and Measures 2005/06 in relation to the Chief Executive Officer’s performance as shown amended on Attachment 1 hereto.”

“That having regard to:

1 the data from Mercer Cullen Egan Dell in relation to both the public

sector and local government remuneration movement and forecasts; and

2 the achievement of the performance criteria in the contract; the CEO Performance Review Committee RECOMMENDS to Council that the Chief Executive Officer’s salary be INCREASED by 5% to apply from the anniversary date of the review.”

Issues and options considered: As contained within the minutes of the Chief Executive Officer Performance Review Committee. Link to Strategic Plan: Objective 4.5 - To manage our workforce as a strategic business resource. Legislation – Statutory Provisions: Section 5.8 of the Local Government Act 1995 provides for a local government to establish a committee to assist Council. Section 5.38 of the Local Government Act 1995 (the Act) states that each employee who is employed for a term of more than one year, including the CEO and each senior employee, is to be reviewed at least once in relation to every year of employment.


Risk Management considerations: The performance review process is designed to evaluate and assess the CEO's performance against Key Performance Indicators on a periodic basis and the Performance Review Committee is required to refer its recommendations to the Council for consideration and actioning. Financial/Budget Implications: The financial impact of the recommended salary increase is contained within the 2005/06 budget for cost Centre 1110, CEO Administration. Policy implications: Not Applicable. Regional Significance: Not Applicable. Sustainability implications: Not Applicable. Consultation: Not applicable. COMMENT The confirmed minutes of the Chief Executive Officer Performance Review Committee held on 13 October 2005 and the unconfirmed minutes of the 14 November 2005 are submitted to Council for noting and endorsement of the recommendations. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 Minutes of the CEO Performance Review Committee meeting

held on 13 October 2005. Attachment 2 Minutes of the CEO Performance Review Committee meeting

held on 14 November 2005. Attachment 3 CONFIDENTIAL ATTACHMENT – CEO Key Performance

Indicators and Measures 2005/06 VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority


MOVED Cmr Clough, SECONDED Cmr Fox that Council: 1 NOTES the following Minutes of the CEO Performance Review Committee

meetings: (a) confirmed minutes of 13 October 2005 forming Attachment 1 to Report

C70-12/05; (b) unconfirmed minutes of 14 November 2005 forming Attachment 2 to

Report C70-12/05; 2 AGREES to the Key Performance Indicators and Measures 2005/06 in relation

to the Chief Executive Officer’s performance as shown on Confidential Attachment 3 to Report C70-12/05 attached hereto in the Official Minute Book;

3 INCREASES the salary of the Chief Executive Officer by five (5) percent to

apply from the anniversary date of the review. With a request that his comments be recorded, Cmr Clough congratulated the Chief Executive Officer on his performance. Cmr Clough stated that Mr Hunt, as CEO of the City of Joondalup is one of the State’s most senior, experienced CEOs. Cmr Clough was of the opinion that electors considering nominating as a prospective candidate for the upcoming election needed to come into this role with a firm commitment to work with the CEO to provide the best outcomes for the city. Discussion ensued with Commissioners offering congratulations to Mr Hunt. The Motion was Put and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (5/0) Appendix 30 refers To access this attachment on electronic document, click here: Attach30min131205.pdf Chief Executive Officer entered the Chamber, the time being 2113 hrs. C71-12/05 ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING OF ELECTORS HELD

ON 28 NOVEMBER 2005 - [65578] WARD: All RESPONSIBLE Mr Garry Hunt DIRECTOR: Office of the CEO

PURPOSE For the Council to note the Minutes of the Annual General Meeting of Electors held on 28 November 2005 and to give consideration to the motions moved at that meeting.

Attach30min131205.pdf


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Annual General meeting of Electors of the City of Joondalup was held on 28 November 2005 in accordance with Section 5.27 of the Local Government Act 1995. Section 5.33(1) of the Act requires that all decisions made at an Electors’ Meeting if practicable are to be considered at the next ordinary meeting of Council. It is recommended that Council: 1 NOTES the Minutes of the Annual General Meeting of Electors held on 28 November

2005 forming Attachment 1 to this Report; 2 REQUESTS that a report be submitted to the Council meeting scheduled for 21

February 2006 giving consideration to the motions raised at the Annual General Meeting of Electors.

BACKGROUND The City's Annual General Meeting of Electors was held on 28 November 2005 in accordance with Section 5.27 of the Local Government Act 1995. The meeting was attended by 24 members of the public with a total of 14 motions passed at the meeting. The minutes of that meeting form Attachment 1 hereto. Decisions made by electors at an Electors’ Meeting are the recommendations of those electors present, on the matters discussed and considered at the meeting. As with recommendations made at Council committee meetings, they are not binding on the Council, however the Council must consider them. DETAILS The Motions passed at the Annual General Meeting of Electors are set out below: MOTION NO 1 – BUSHCARE

MOVED Dr M Apthorpe, 69 Bacchante Circle, Ocean Reef SECONDED Mr S Magyar, 31 Drummer Way, Heathridge that the proposed two-man bush care team for on-ground work in natural areas be set up immediately with a realistic budget, as a matter of urgency, and that it not be postponed until well into 2006, pending the purchase of a vehicle. The Motion was Put and CARRIED

MOTION NO 2 – EMPLOYMENT OF BUSH CONTRACTORS

MOVED Dr M Apthorpe, 69 Bacchante Circle, Ocean Reef SECONDED Mr S Magyar, 31 Drummer Way, Heathridge that the City of Joondalup employ other bush contractors at peak weeding season, in addition to Bennet Brook, when that company cannot supply all the time and services that are needed. The Motion was Put and CARRIED


MOTION NO 3 – PROPOSED COASTAL DUAL USE PATH

MOVED Dr M Apthorpe, 69 Bacchante Circle, Ocean Reef SECONDED Ms S Hart, 32 Pullan Place, Greenwood that the proposed route of the coastal dual-use path be referred to the Conservation Advisory Committee and the Joondalup Community Coastcare Forum for recommendations before the route is finalised. The Motion was Put and CARRIED

MOTION NO 4 – ISSUES RELATING TO THE FORMER CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

MOVED Mr Noal Gannon, 79 Clontarf Street, Sorrento SECONDED Ms S Hart, 32 Pullan Place, Greenwood that at the first ordinary meeting of Council in February 2006, a report be presented which includes the following information on what has become known as the ‘Denis Smith affair’: 1 copies of all information given to all applicants, including Smith, when they

expressed interest in the position of CEO, City of Joondalup; 2 copies of Smith’s application for employment together with the Curriculum

Vitae (CV) submitted. Personal information such as address, age and personal relationships are not relevant;

3 copy of Smith’s Contract of Employment;

4 copies of all correspondence between the City and their legal advisors

pertaining to Smith and actions taken by Councillors during his term of employment;

5 copies of all motions presented to Council during Smith’s tenure which

referred directly to him or actions taken by Councillors in respect of Smith, include the result of the votes;

6 a table showing the list of legal expenses incurred by the City over this affair

broken up into the following categories: (a) amounts claimed and paid to legal advisors; (b) amounts claimed and paid to ex CEO, Smith; (c) amounts claimed and paid to Councillors;

(d) amounts claimed and paid to staff; (e) amounts claimed but payment refused (give details); (f) any amounts expected to be claimed but not yet received or in dispute; (g) any other amounts relative to this affair; 7 copy of the Termination Agreement between the City of Joondalup and Denis

Smith;


8 the decisions reached by the Minister for Local Government resulting from the report of the McIntyre Inquiry. Should that not be available, it can be added to the report at a later date as soon as it is available.

The Motion was Put and CARRIED MOTION NO 5 – DECEMBER 2005 MEETING OF COUNCIL

MOVED Ms S Hart, 32 Pullan Place, Greenwood SECONDED Mr S Magyar, 31 Drummer Way, Heathridge that the City of Joondalup stop this load-up in the December meeting of each year and stop overloading the community and start to be a little bit fair. The Motion was Put and CARRIED

MOTION NO 6 – ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMITTEE

MOVED Mrs M Macdonald, 5 Mair Place, Mullaloo SECONDED Mr K Zakrevsky, 49 Korella Street, Mullaloo that in accordance with the McIntyre Inquiry the City sets up a committee which meets monthly to look at the way in which ratepayers’ questions have been answered or ignored so that this Administration is made open and accountable for its actions. The Motion was Put and CARRIED

MOTION NO 7 – MULLALOO DUNES PROTECTION AND REVEGETATION PROJECT

MOVED Mrs M Zakrevsky, 49 Korella Street, Mullaloo SECONDED Mr M Sideris, 12 Page Drive, Mullaloo that the Joondalup Coast Care Forum’s Mullaloo dunes protection and revegetation project be supported by the City of Joondalup with funding for fencing as detailed in the submission to meet the contractual requirements for this project. The Motion was Put and CARRIED

MOTION NO 8 – REFERRAL OF ITEMS TO THE CONSERVATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE

MOVED Mrs M Zakrevsky, 49 Korella Street, Mullaloo SECONDED Mr M Caiacob, 7 Rowan Place, Mullaloo that the: 1 chemical weed control in Bush Forever sites, including the Bush Forever site

325 that extends from Hillarys Marina north to Burns Beach be referred to the Conservation Advisory Committee;

2 terms of the contract with Turf Masters be referred to the next meeting of the

Conservation Advisory Committee to clarify the account source and cost. The Motion was Put and CARRIED


MOTION NO 9 – REVIEW OF WARD BOUNDARIES

MOVED Mr M Caiacob, 7 Rowan Place, Mullaloo SECONDED Mr K Zakrevsky, 49 Korella Street, Mullaloo that: 1 the Council ADVISES the Minister and the Local Government Advisory Board

that the electors of the district have instructed the Council of the City of Joondalup:

(a) NOT to proceed with or progress any current ward boundary review;

(b) NOT to proceed with or progress any ward boundary review until a

maximum legislative time frame of the formal review is due to expire in 2007;

(c) that the Council retain the existing ward boundary structure and

Councillor elector representation until the next review due in 2007.

The Motion was Put and CARRIED MOTION NO 10 – IMPLEMENTATION OF NOISE POLICY

MOVED Mr K Zakrevsky, 49 Korella Street, Mullaloo SECONDED Mr M Sideris, 12 Page Drive, Mullaloo that a Noise Policy is long overdue and should be implemented as quickly as possible. The Motion was Put and CARRIED

MOTION NO 11 – AMENDMENTS TO THE STANDING ORDERS LOCAL LAW

MOVED Mr S Magyar, 31 Drummer Way, Heathridge SECONDED Mr A Bryant, 6b Stocker Court, Craigie that we the electors of the City of Joondalup: 1 BELIEVE the governance framework for the City of Joondalup is lacking in

effective mechanisms to ensure that the Council sets policy and that the Council acts as a watchdog against unresponsiveness, incompetence and corruption;

2 REQUEST the Commissioners to change the City’s processes and

procedures to ensure that the Council can act as watch-dog against possible unresponsiveness, incompetence and corruption by:

(a) including in the Order of Business at all Council meetings and Briefing

Sessions questions with and without notice from elected members; (b) including in the Order of Business at all Council meetings and Briefing

Sessions a second public question time and statement time; (c) establishing the reporting framework within the Standing Orders for

petitions received by the Council. The Motion was Put and CARRIED


MOTION NO 12 – RECOVERY OF COSTS – FORMER CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

MOVED Mr M Sideris, 12 Page Drive, Mullaloo SECONDED Mr S Magyar, 31 Drummer Way, Heathridge that this Council immediately initiate action to recover the $500,000 paid out to Denis Smith. The Motion was Put and CARRIED

MOTION NO 13 – TAX LIABILITY ISSUES – FORMER CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

MOVED Mr M Sideris, 12 Page Drive, Mullaloo SECONDED Ms S Hart, 32 Pullan Place, Greenwood that this Council forwards all advice, all information pertaining to Mr Denis Smith’s tax liabilities, be they Fringe Benefits Tax (FBT) or Goods and Services Tax (GST) to the Commissioner for Taxation for a ruling and that this ruling be published by the City of Joondalup. The Motion was Put and CARRIED

MOTION NO 14 – RECORDS MANAGEMENT

MOVED Mr M Sideris, 12 Page Drive, Mullaloo SECONDED Mrs M Macdonald, 5 Mair Place, Mullaloo that this Council calls the State Records Board to conduct a full audit of all the records contained within the City of Joondalup and looks at the McIntyre Inquiry to look at the lack of document control within this City. The Motion was Put and CARRIED

Link to Strategic Plan: Outcomes: The City of Joondalup is an interactive community. Objectives: 4.3 To ensure the City responds to and communicates with the community. Strategies: 4.3.3 Provide fair and transparent decision-making processes. Legislation – Statutory Provisions: Section 5.33 of the Local Government Act 1995 states: Decisions made at Electors’ Meetings 5.33 (1) All decisions made at an Electors’ Meeting are to be considered by the

Council at the next ordinary council meeting or, if this is not practicable –


(a) at the first ordinary council meeting after that meeting; or (b) at a special meeting called for that purpose,

whichever happens first.

(2) If at a meeting of the Council a local government makes a decision in

response to a decision made at an Electors’ Meeting, the reasons for the decision are to be recorded in the minutes of the Council Meeting.

Risk Management considerations: The failure to consider the decisions made at the Annual General Meeting of Electors will mean that the City has not complied with Section 5.33 of the Local Government Act 1995. Financial/Budget Implications: Not applicable. Policy implications: Not applicable. Regional Significance: Not applicable. Sustainability implications: Not applicable. Consultation: Not applicable. COMMENT The motions carried at the Annual General Meeting of Electors held on 28 November 2005 are presented to the Council in accordance with the requirements of the legislation. Given the number of the motions carried at the meeting and some of their complexities, it is recommended that a further report be presented to the 21 February 2006 ordinary meeting of the Council. This will enable adequate research to be undertaken to assist the Council in making informed decisions in response to the motions carried at the AGM. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 Minutes of the Annual General Meeting of Electors held 28 November

2005 VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority


MOVED Cmr Smith, SECONDED Cmr Anderson that Council: 1 NOTES the Minutes of the Annual General Meeting of Electors held on 28

November 2005 forming Attachment 1 to Report C71-12/05; 2 REQUESTS that a report be submitted to the Council meeting scheduled for 21

February 2006 giving consideration to the motions raised at the Annual General Meeting of Electors.

The Motion was Put and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (5/0) Appendix 32 refers To access this attachment on electronic document, click here: Attach32min131205.pdf C72-12/05 SALARIED STAFF - 2005 EBA NEGOTIATIONS WARD: All RESPONSIBLE Mr Garry Hunt DIRECTOR: Office of the CEO

PURPOSE To seek Council’s endorsement of the EBA including salary increases and translation costs and to authorise the CEO to lodge an application in the Australian Industrial Relations Commission to certify the Agreement 2005 and to deregister the Certified Agreement 2002. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City has been negotiating with staff and their representatives on a new Enterprise Bargaining Agreement for several months. The previous Agreement expired at the end of June 2005 and a new agreement has now been successfully negotiated. The results of these negotiations are in the attached draft Agreement. This Agreement proposes to reward staff with pay increases of 4% or $30 (whichever is the greater) per week for each year, providing flexible working arrangements including changes in the working hours for particular classes of staff, and a real focus on underpinning the City’s Strategic Plan by promoting responsibility and commitment and promoting training and development.

It is recommended that Council:

1 ENDORSES the EBA which allows for:

• 4% pa or $30 per week whichever is the greater for each employee covered by this Agreement to take effect from the first pay periods on or after 1 July 2005, 1 July 2006 and 1 July 2007; and

• Salaried Staff translation in accordance with schedule 1 of the EBA

commencing on the first pay period on or after 1 March 2006.



2 AUTHORISES the CEO to lodge an application in the Australian Industrial Relations Commission to certify the Agreement 2005.

3 AUTHORISES the CEO to lodge an application in the Australian Industrial

Relations Commission to deregister the Certified Agreement 2002. BACKGROUND The previous 3-year Enterprise Bargaining Agreement for Salaried Officers expired on 30th June 2005 and since that time staff have continued with their rates of pay and working conditions tied to this agreement. Following an agreement with staff representatives in November 2004 it was agreed that the City would enter into another agreement with the appropriate unions and staff. Part of the process to achieve a successful certification in the Commission is to negotiate in good faith. To that end both parties demonstrated a great deal of good will and willingness to negotiate to the best of their endeavours. The Agreement represents gains for both parties and one that will provide significant improvements in the employees’ terms and conditions in return for greater flexibility for the City’s operations. Another part of the process is that a ballot be taken to determine whether staff that are governed by the Agreement are prepared to accept the terms and conditions. That has now been undertaken and successfully passed in favour of accepting the Agreement. Once Council has endorsed the EBA it will then be lodged in the Industrial Commission for hearing and determination. DETAILS Issues and options considered: A negotiating committee consisting of management and staff representatives have been negotiating a draft Enterprise Agreement incorporating principles and specific provisions of commonality across the organisation. This Agreement will allow the organisation to reward staff for achieving outcomes and enhance significant cultural changes by introducing more flexible working arrangements. One of the essential features of the staff’s claim was the reintroduction of the superannuation component from 1% in the first year phased in over two and a half years to 6%. However management did not support it. There were also several policy claims by the union encompassing work life balance policies including, purchasing extra leave, length of service payments, Christmas closedown, working from home and supply of vehicles. However it was considered more prudent to deal with these issues as policy matters separate from the EBA process. Essentially the primary outcomes of this Agreement will be improved productivity and ordinary hours, greater flexibility, improved customer service and conditions of employment. The negotiation process for the development of the Agreement is now completed with the negotiation committee in agreement with the terms and conditions. The main objectives of this EBA are to focus on meeting future business needs as it relates to ordinary hours of work, customer service, life balance needs, altering base salary, and salary point issues. In summary the Agreement consists of the following terms and conditions:


• A term of three years from the date of certification. • Specified objectives underpinning the Agreement of commitment, trust,

employment security and training. • The ability of the City to translate staff to a new salary structure. • A guaranteed salary increase of 4% or $30 per week for each year of the

Agreement. • A new motivational rewards clause. • Greater flexibility in the ordinary hours of work for some areas of the City that

mainly deal with customer service. • New clauses to provide staff the opportunity to bank some of their hours rather

than be paid overtime. • Provision for annual leave to be pegged 6 months after the date it accrues. • Cashing out annual leave on the proviso that staff take two weeks annual leave in

the preceding 12-month period. • An enabling clause to provide employees with self funded leave. • Pay out of unused sick leave to a maximum of 5% under certain conditions. • Taking long service leave provisions after 10 years on a yearly basis. • Paid parental leave of 6 weeks. • A union-City statement. • A dispute resolution procedure. • A security of employment clause. • Salary packaging clause. • Training provisions. • Special conditions with regard to ordinary hours arrangements in the area of:

Ranger Services Libraries Leisure Centres Marketing, Customer Service and Council Support.

The City is committed to recruiting, developing and retaining a high performing workforce. One of the challenges facing the City at the moment, given the shortage of skilled workers in some areas, is not only to retain staff but also to attract high calibre, visionary staff. Translating staff to a new salary structure will give the City an edge over its competitors to attract these potential candidates by increasing the base payments in the levels. One of the anomalies of the previous reward and recognition system was that salary increases did not include increases in the base rates that were applied to the employee. This has to some extent created an anomaly and to address that, translation will in a very short period of time bring staff back into a limited number of steps (four) within the 9 level structure. Link to Strategic Plan: The Strategic Plan clearly identifies through the Key Result Area of Organisation Culture and the accompanying objectives, performance measures and strategies of developing and maintaining a best practice working environment and becoming an employer of choice. These enhanced conditions should pave the way now for a satisfied and re-energised workforce. In terms of the strategic plan one of our objectives is to:


To manage our workforce as a strategic business resource. The Performance Measures associated with this include:

• Develop a corporate workforce management plan. • Progress the implementation of a corporate performance management system. • Implement best practice people management policies and tools that assist in

the achievement of the City’s workforce objectives. • Implement a structured employee training and development plan

The provisions within this EBA gives the City the industrial instrument to move in that direction. Legislation – Statutory Provisions: The City will comply with the Industrial relations Commission Rules and regulations to have the EBA certified pursuant to the appropriate sections of the Industrial Relations Act 1996. A statutory declaration will be signed by the CEO to indicate all the appropriate processes have been adhered too. Risk Management considerations: As there has been no salary increases through the EBA process for some time this EBA will assist with budgeting more certainty in budget forecasts and providing a more flexible and increased focus on individual business units needs. Financial/Budget Implications: In determining whether the amount of salary increases of 4% or $30 per week is justified it is critical to note what the City is getting in return for offering these salary increases. As discussed earlier this EBA with its salary offer is expecting the ordinary working hours of work for some sections of the City to be flexible enough to allow management to roster staff on unsociable hours to the extent that the City’s customer service charter is not weakened. In particular staff in the Leisure Centres, Rangers, Council Support, Marketing and Libraries are notable examples. Other instances of budget implications are as follows:

• The term of three years will give the City some certainty about salary increases for that period. A guaranteed salary increase of 4% or $30 per week for each year of the Agreement will allow the City to budget these increases and allow the appropriate budgeting to be fixed.

• The ability of the City to translate staff to a new salary structure provides clear

budgeting mechanisms for increments and total costs for employees.

• A new motivational reward clause may assist in retaining some staff and thereby reducing recruitment costs.

• An enhancement of the ordinary hours of work for some areas of the City that

essentially deal with customer service will give the City more scope to roster staff out of ordinary hours and will reduce penalty conditions.


• A new clause to provide staff the opportunity to bank some of their hours rather than be paid overtime is a positive feature of the agreement and which at the same time meet the needs of a changing workforce.

• Provision for annual leave to be pegged 6 months after the date it accrues will

reduce the leave liability over time because it will be paid at the rate 6 months after it is accrued.

• Cashing out annual leave on the proviso that staff take two weeks annual leave in

the preceding 12-month period may assist the City in reducing its annual leave liability.

• An enabling clause to provide employees with self-funded leave will in most cases

be cost neutral and not be an impost on the City. It may be a flexible alternative for staff to take leave.

• Pay out of unused sick leave to a maximum of 5% under certain conditions will

involve a cost to the City. However given the low maximum payout the cost is projected to be minimal to the City which may result in reducing the incidents of taking sick leave.

• Taking long service leave provisions after the first 10-year entitlement. Staff will

now have the option of accruing their long service leave each year at the rate of 1.3 weeks after this first entitlement. If there is agreement with their supervisor they may opt to take it annually once it has accrued. If staff acquit this leave on an annual basis then there may be a reduction in the City’s leave liability, as the leave is used at the time it accrues.

• Paid maternity leave of 6 weeks in accordance with the award conditions. This is

more of an incentive to keep staff that have children so their skills are not lost. While there is a small cost to the City the implications in the long term would be of benefit to the city because their skills are not lost and the City may not have to recruit more staff to replace them.

• A union-City statement, a dispute resolution procedure, a security of employment

clause, and a Salary packaging clause result in no increased financial implications.

• Training provisions is a cost to the City but training enhances employees’ skills.

New and improved competencies are fundamental to any organisation of this size. The cost benefits are realised by an increase in these skills and competencies.

• Schedules for Rangers, Libraries, Recreation Centres and Council Support are

aimed at improved ordinary hours, flexibility and mitigating penalty exposure to reflect the changing needs of those businesses.

The financial implications to the City for its offer of 4% or $30 per week for each year, including increments and translation is within the City’s financial forecasts.


Policy Implications: There will be a number of new policies required to implement changes with respect to pegging annual leave, expanding working hours, work life balance facilities, banking hours, cashing out annual leave, self funded leave and taking long service leave after 10 years to mention just a few. Regional Significance: Not applicable Sustainability implications: Not applicable Consultation: Unions and staff have been networking with staff over the last several months. Time off for networking meetings have been granted to staff and intensive consultation has taken place. Each staff member has been given a hard copy of the agreed document and also sent a copy via email. There were also briefing meetings with staff upon request following the distribution of the Agreement. All eligible staff were invited to vote on the Agreement on Friday 9th December following the 14 day timeframe to consider the Agreement as set down by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission’s rules. There were 374 eligible staff members that could vote. There was a resounding vote in support of the Agreement. There were 250 employees voted, 215 voted in favour 33 voted against and 2 were spoilt. COMMENT Many organisations have formal statements about the importance of managing their workforce. However, only a handful of cutting edge organisations put this rhetoric into practice. When organisations see their employees as strategic assets rather than costs, they adopt people management practices that encourage high quality performance built on strong employee commitment. This requires investment in the development of management systems and skills that will enable the organisation to manage its people with the same rigour as any other resource. Now that the City of Joondalup management has consulted widely and gained wide support by the staff the onus is on management to actually ‘make it happen’. Organisationally, there needs to be a shared vision and sense of direction to which people management strategies can attach. These shared directions need to be consistently reflected in all business planning which should in turn reflect measures and accountabilities. This EBA can deliver positive outcomes for management and the staff. It can be used as a vehicle to demonstrate to employees and other stakeholders, that the City is striving to ensure that good people management is a good business sense and is prepared to make an investment and evaluate performance.


Reviewing key activities such as training and ensuring that the principles of equity, fairness and excellence are applied in all aspects of employment will encourage employee commitment to major change. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 The City of Joondalup Agreement 2005 VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority MOVED Cmr Smith, SECONDED Cmr Fox that Council:

1 ENDORSES the EBA which allows for:

• 4% pa or $30 per week whichever is the greater for each employee covered by this Agreement to take effect from the first pay periods on or after 1 July 2005, 1 July 2006 and 1 July 2007;

• Salaried Staff translation in accordance with schedule 1 of the EBA

commencing on the first pay period on or after 1 March 2006;

2 AUTHORISES the CEO to lodge an application in the Australian Industrial Relations Commission to certify the Agreement 2005;

3 AUTHORISES the CEO to lodge an application in the Australian Industrial

Relations Commission to deregister the Certified Agreement 2002. Discussion ensued with congratulations being offered to officers and staff who liaised with the Unions in progressing this matter. The Motion was Put and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (5/0) Appendix 33 hereto in the official Minute Book


Name/Position Cmr P Clough Item No/Subject C73-12/05 – Review of Ward Names, Boundaries and Elected

Member Representation Nature of interest Interest that may affect impartiality Extent of Interest Cmr Clough resides in the City of Joondalup. Cmr Clough stated

he would act impartially in relation to this matter. Name/Position Cmr A Fox Item No/Subject C73-12/05 – Review of Ward Names, Boundaries and Elected

Member Representation Nature of interest Interest that may affect impartiality Extent of Interest Cmr Fox is a resident of the City of Joondalup. Cmr Fox stated she

would act impartially in relation to this matter. Name/Position Cmr S Smith Item No/Subject C73-12/05 – Review of Ward Names, Boundaries and Elected

Member Representation Nature of interest Interest that may affect impartiality Extent of Interest Cmr Smith is a landowner and eligible to be an elector in the City.

C73-12/05 REVIEW OF WARD NAMES, BOUNDARIES AND

ELECTED MEMBER REPRESENTATION – [16878] WARD: All RESPONSIBLE Mr Garry Hunt DIRECTOR: Office of the CEO

CJ051206_BRF.DOC:ITEM 34 PURPOSE For the Council to: -

• consider the submissions received regarding the review of the ward names, boundaries and elected member representation; and

• recommend to the Local Government Advisory Board its preferred ward structure, ward names and elected member representation model.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Joondalup established its current ward names, boundaries and elected member representation in August 1999 and is required by the Local Government Act 1995 to complete a review of the current ward structure no later than eight (8) years from the last review. It is the fundamental right of the Council to undertake a review of its ward boundaries and elected member representation at any stage within the eight (8) year legislated timeframe. In fact, it would be regarded as sound practice for the Council to undertake regular reviews of its ward boundaries and representation. The Council agreed to prepare a discussion paper on the review in May 2005. The Local Government Advisory Board wrote to all local governments who had not undertaken a review of their ward structures and requested they do so by 30 June 2006. This request was made of both the City of Joondalup and the City of Wanneroo.


The Council at its meeting held on 11 October 2005 resolved to formally commence the process as required by Schedule 2.2 of the Local Government Act 1995. The review process includes the following: -

• Council resolves to undertake the review (11 October 2005); • Public submission period opens (20 October 2005); • Information provided to the community for discussion (20 October 2005); • Public submission period closes (2 December 2005); • The Council considers all submissions and relevant factors and makes a

decision (13 December 2005); • The Council submits a report to the Local Government Advisory Board (the

Board) for its consideration; and • (If any change is proposed) the Board submits a recommendation to the

Minister for Local Government and Regional Development (the Minister). Public submissions closed on 2 December 2005 with seventeen (17) submissions being received. Of those submissions received: -

• eleven (11) supported retaining the current seven (7) ward structure; • of those who supported the current ward structure 5 submissions offered alternatives

if the status quo could not be retained, but all supported a seven (7) ward, fourteen (14) Councillor (two Councillors per ward), structure;

• one (1) supported example 2 as contained within the structure paper, twelve (12) Councillors, three per ward representing four (4) wards;

• one (1) supported a four (4) ward structure, with three Councillors per ward; • one (1) supported the creation of a new ward representing solely the Central

Business District (CBD) area; • one (1) supported an eight (8) ward structure with various representation across each

ward with a total of fourteen (14) Councillors. A number of options have been prepared for consideration by the Council. When considering any option, the Council shall have due regard to the following factors: -

• Community of interests; • Physical and topographic features; • Demographic trends; • Economic factors; and • The ratio of councillors to electors in the various wards.

The current ward structure does not meet all of the factors as prescribed by the Local Government Act 1995. Following an assessment of the options presented it is recommended that Council: - 1 NOTES that the Local Government Advisory Board, in June 2005, requested the City

of Joondalup to undertake a review of its ward boundaries and elected member representation and submit a report to the Local Government Advisory Board by no later than 30 June 2006;

2 NOTES that the Local Government Advisory Board has also requested the City of

Wanneroo to undertake a review of its ward boundaries and elected member representation by 30 June 2006;


3 NOTES that the current ward boundaries and councillor representation of the City of Joondalup does not meet all the determining factors as detailed by the Local Government Act 1995, and the Local Government Advisory Board, being: -

1 Community of interests; 2 Physical and topographic features; 3 Demographic trends; 4 Economic factors; and 5 The ratio of councillors to electors in the various wards.

4 NOTES that a seven (7) ward, two (2) councillor per ward model cannot be achieved

for the City of Joondalup and meet the determining factors as detailed in one (1) above;

5 NOTES that the following options as outlined in Attachment 3 to this report meet all

the determining factors as prescribed by the Local Government Act 1995 and the Local Government Advisory Board as detailed in (1) above: -

• Option 3; • Option 10; • Option 11; • Option 12; • Option 13;

6 BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY decision ADOPTS, option 13 as outlined in

Attachment 3 to this report and in accordance with schedule 2.2 (9) of the Local Government Act, 1995, recommends to the Local Government Advisory Board that:

(a) An order be made under section 2.2(1) of the Local Government Act, 1995, to

abolish the existing ward boundaries for the City of Joondalup and divide the district into three (3) new wards with boundaries as detailed in the map – option 13 attached;

(b) An order be made under section 2.3 of the Local Government Act, 1995, to

name the three wards as detailed in option 13, as follows: -

• Ward 1 – North Ward; • Ward 2 – Central Ward; and • Ward 3 – South Ward.

(c) An order be made under section 2.18 of the Local Government Act 1995 to

designate the following number of offices of councillor for each ward as detailed on option 13 as attached: -

• Ward 1 – North Ward - four (4) councillors; • Ward 2 – Central Ward - four (4) councillors; and • Ward 3 – South Ward – four (4) councillors.

(d) The changes to the ward names, boundaries and councillor representation for

the district of the City of Joondalup as detailed in (1), (2) and (3) above are in place for the election scheduled to be held 6 May 2006.


7 REQUESTS the Western Australian Local Government Association to request the Minister for Local Government and Regional Development to amend the Local Government Act 1995 to allow for any review of ward boundaries and councilor representation to be undertaken by the Western Australian Electoral Commission.

BACKGROUND The Joondalup and Wanneroo Order 1998 that came into operation as of 1 July 1998 established the City of Joondalup. The Order created two new local governments, the City of Joondalup and the Shire (now City) of Wanneroo. The Local Government Act 1995 came into operation on 1 July 1996 and places a legislative requirement on all local governments to review their ward boundaries and elected member representation within eight (8) years. At the creation of the City of Joondalup, there was a requirement to establish its ward boundaries, the number of wards, and elected member representation per ward. Council at its meeting held on 9 February 1999 (Report CJ04-02/99 refers) resolved to review its ward boundaries and representation in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 2.2 of the Local Government Act. Following the review, Council at its meeting held on 25 May 1999 (Report CJ194-05/99 refers) considered the public submissions made and resolved:

“That the Joint Commissioners RECOMMEND to the Local Government Advisory Board that the Council favours a seven ward (two councillors per ward) proposal as detailed on Plan No 7/14 included as Appendix 1 to Report CJ194-05/99.”

On 27 August 1999 the District of Joondalup (Ward Boundaries, Representations and Elections) 1999 was gazetted. The City of Joondalup is required to complete its review by 26 August 2007. The Council at its meeting held on 17 May 2005 (Item CJ084-05/05 refers) resolved to agree to undertake a review of its ward boundaries and representation and to prepare a discussion paper to assist in the review process. The Council at the same meeting agreed that the review would be finalised by an elected Council. The Local Government Advisory Board wrote to all local governments who had not undertaken a review of their ward structures and requested they do so by 30 June 2006. This request was made of both the City of Joondalup and the City of Wanneroo. The Council at its meeting held on 11 October 2005 (Item CJ205-10/05 refers), resolved to: -

• CONDUCT a review of its Ward names, boundaries and elected member representation in accordance with Schedule 2.2 of the Local Government Act 1995;

• SEEK public submissions on the discussion paper forming Attachment 1 to Report

CJ205-10/05 (as amended);


• CONDUCT two (2) independently facilitated workshops as part of the public submission period relating to the review of ward boundaries, names and elected member representation as detailed in 1 above, in order to explain the review process and engage the community;

• HOLD the two (2) workshops as detailed above no later than three (3) weeks prior to

the scheduled close of public submissions for the discussion paper on the review of ward boundaries, names and elected member representation;

• REQUEST a further report be presented to Council following the completion of the

statutory public consultation as required by Schedule 2.2 of the Local Government Act 1995;

• the CEO making modifications to the discussion paper, as a result of the review of the

document by Edith Cowan University, that do not change the substance of the discussion paper or the examples.

As requested by the Council, the discussion paper was forwarded to the Edith Cowan University to ensure that the report was written in an unbiased way. Comment from ECU confirmed that to be the case. The review was appropriately advertised in the local paper, on the City’s website, local notice boards and identified groups were advised in writing. The discussion paper was made available to those interested parties to assist them in making a submission. The Council at its meeting held on 29 November 2005 resolved as follows: -

That the resolution of Council in respect of CJ084-05/05, be REVOKED, being:

“3. STATES that the intention of this resolution is to progress the process and that it is also the intention that an elected Council will decide Ward boundaries at the appropriate time.”

AND REPLACES it with: 3. “That the Council considers any public submissions following the statutory six

(6) week public consultation period relating to the review of the City of Joondalup’s ward names, boundaries and elected member representation at the earliest opportunity; and

4. Following the review of public submissions as detailed in (3) above makes a

recommendation to the Local Government Advisory Board for its consideration.”

DETAILS The elected Council of the City of Joondalup was dismissed on 2 December 2005. As a result of this dismissal of the elected Council, the City of Joondalup is being governed by five (5) Commissioners appointed by the Minister as per the Local Government Act 1995. The structure of the previous elected Council consisted of a Mayor, elected by the electors, and fourteen (14) Councillors across seven (7) wards, with two (2) Councillors representing each ward. The current ward structure of the City of Joondalup is as follows:


Ward

Suburb (Electors) Number of Electors

Number of Councillors

Councillor: Elector Ratio

% Ratio Deviation

Lakeside -

Joondalup (4746) Edgewater (3206) Woodvale (6695)

14,647

2

1:7323

- 0.01%

Marina -

Ocean Reef (5299) Connolly (2394) Heathridge (4533)

12,226

2

1:6113

16.51%

North Coastal -

Burns Beach (148) Iluka (2131) Kinross (3801) Currambine (3993)

10,073

2

1:5036

31.22%

Pinnaroo -

Beldon (2739) Craigie (3929) Padbury (5896)

12,564

2

1:6282

14.20%

South -

Kingsley (9713) Greenwood (7314) Warwick (2916)

19,943

2

1:9971

- 36.18%

South Coastal -

Sorrento (5492) Marmion (1676) Duncraig (11303)

18,471

2

1:9235

- 26.13%

Whitfords -

Mullaloo (4049) Kallaroo (3625) Hillarys (6917)

14,591

2

1:7295

0.37%

Total 102,515 14 1:7322 The Western Australian Electoral Commission has supplied the number of electors per suburb and ward, as at June 2005. The ratio of councillors to electors is based on the number of electors per ward that a councilor represents, and not the population of that ward. The Minister for Local Government and Regional Development has indicated that he will not consider changes to ward boundaries and representation that result in ward councilor/elector ratios that are greater than plus or minus 10% of the average councilor/elector ratio for the City of Joondalup. An elector is defined by the Local Government Act, 1995 and states: -

4.29. Eligibility of residents to be enrolled

1. A person is eligible to be enrolled to vote at elections for a district or ward (“the electorate”) if the person is enrolled as an elector for the Legislative Assembly in respect of a residence in the electorate.


2. For the purposes of subsection (1) a person is to be regarded as being enrolled as an elector for the Legislative Assembly even if his or her name has been omitted in error from the relevant electoral roll under the Electoral Act 1907. 4.30. Eligibility of non-resident owners and occupiers to be enrolled

1. A person is eligible to be enrolled to vote at elections for a district or ward (“the electorate”) if the person —

a. is enrolled as an elector for the Legislative Assembly or the House of Representatives in respect of a residence outside the electorate;

b. owns or occupies rateable property within the electorate; and c. has made an enrolment eligibility claim which has been accepted under

section 4.32 and still has effect under section 4.33.

2. For the purposes of subsection (1)(a) a person is to be regarded as being enrolled as an elector for the Legislative Assembly or the House of Representatives even if his or her name has been omitted in error from an electoral roll under the Electoral Act 1907 or the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918.

The percentage ratio deviation shown in the above table provides a clear indication of the percentage difference between the average councillor/elector ratio for the whole of the City of Joondalup of one councillor to 7,322 electors, and the councillor/elector ratio for each ward.

It can be clearly seen that there is a significant imbalance in representation across the City with the South and South Coastal wards being under represented and the North Coastal, Marina and Pinnaroo wards being over represented. Only the Whitfords and Lakeside wards are regarded as a balanced representation with the percentage ratio deviation being plus or minus 10% of the overall City councillor/elector representation, as required by the Local Government Advisory Board. The Local Government Advisory Board may consider deviations greater than plus or minus 10% of the ratio of councillors to electors if the City could justify exceptional circumstances and presents arguments accordingly. Issues and options considered: The following options are available to the Council following the completion of the public consultation process, as defined by the Local Government Act 1995:

• Creating new wards in a district already divided into wards; • Changing the boundaries of a ward; • Abolishing any or all the wards into which the district is divided; • Changing the name of a district or ward; • Changing the number of offices of councillor on a council; and • Specifying or changing the number of offices of councillor for a ward.

Following a review of the public submissions received, after the close of the submission period, a number of options have been formulated and are detailed in the attached document. In considering the options presented, or any other options, the Council shall have regard to the following factors: -



As a way of comparison, the following is an extract of the Electoral Act 1907, which defines the factors that must be taken into consideration when reviewing the State Electoral boundaries: -

16I. Matters to be considered in dividing the State into regions and districts

In making the division of the State into regions and districts the Commissioners shall give due consideration to —

(a) community of interest; (b) land use patterns; (c) means of communication and distance from the capital; (d) physical features; (e) existing boundaries of regions and districts; (f) existing local government boundaries; and (g) the trend of demographic changes.

Link to Strategic Plan: Objective 1.3 To continue to provide services that meet changing needs of a diverse

and growing community. Objective 3.3 To continue to meet changing demographic needs. Objective 4.3 To ensure the City responds to and communicates with the

community. Strategy 4.3.3 Provide fair and transparent decision-making processes Legislation – Statutory Provisions: Schedule 2.2 of the Local Government Act 1995 details the process to be followed when carrying out a review of its ward boundaries and number of offices of Councillor for each ward:

Schedule 2.2 — Provisions about names, wards and representation

1 Interpretation

In this Schedule, unless the contrary intention appears — “affected electors”, in relation to a submission, means electors whose eligibility as electors comes from residence, or ownership or occupation of property, in the area directly affected by the submission; “review” means a review required by clause 4(4) or 6 or authorised by clause 5(a); “submission” means a submission under clause 3 that an order be made to do any or all of the things referred to in section 2.2(1), 2.3(3) or 2.18(3).


2 Advisory Board to make recommendations relating to new district

(1) When a local government is newly established, the Advisory Board —

(a) at the direction of the Minister; or (b) after receiving a report made by a commissioner appointed

under section 2.6(4) after carrying out a review, is, in a written report to the Minister, to recommend the making of an order to do all or any of the things referred to in section 2.2(1)(a), 2.3(2) or 2.18(1).

(2) In making its recommendations under subclause (1) the Advisory

Board is to take into account the matters referred to in clause 8(c) to (g) so far as they are applicable.

3 Who may make submissions about ward changes etc.

(1) A submission may be made to a local government by affected electors who —

(a) are at least 250 in number; or (b) are at least 10% of the total number of affected electors.

(2) A submission is to comply with any regulations about the making of submissions.

4 Dealing with submissions

(1) The local government is to consider any submission made under clause 3.

(2) If, in the council’s opinion, a submission is —

(a) one of a minor nature; and (b) not one about which public submissions need be invited, the

local government may either propose* to the Advisory Board that the submission be rejected or deal with it under clause 5(b).

* Absolute majority required.

(3) If, in the council’s opinion —

(a) a submission is substantially similar in effect to a submission about which the local government has made a decision (whether an approval or otherwise) within the period of 2 years immediately before the submission is made; or

(b) the majority of effected electors who made the submission no

longer support the submission, the local government may reject the submission.


(4) Unless, under subclause (2) or (3), the local government rejects, or

proposes to reject, the submission or decides to deal with it under clause 5(b), the local government is to carry out a review of whether or not the order sought should, in the council's opinion, be made.

[Clause 4 amended by No. 49 of 2004 s. 68(2)-(4).]

5 Local government may propose ward changes or make minor proposals

A local government may, whether or not it has received a submission — (a) carry out a review of whether or not an order under section 2.2, 2.3(3)

or 2.18 should, in the council's opinion, be made; (b) propose* to the Advisory Board the making of an order under section

2.2(1), 2.3(3) or 2.18(3) if, in the opinion of the council, the proposal is:

(i) one of a minor nature; and (ii) not one about which public submissions need be invited; or

(c) propose* to the Minister the making of an order changing the name of the district or a ward.


6 Local government with wards to review periodically

(1) A local government the district of which is divided into wards is to carry out reviews of —

(a) its ward boundaries; and (b) the number of offices of councillor for each ward, from time to

time so that not more than 8 years elapse between successive reviews.

(2) A local government the district of which is not divided into wards may

carry out reviews as to —

(a) whether or not the district should be divided into wards; and (b) if so —

(i) what the ward boundaries should be; and (ii) the number of offices of councillor there should be for

each ward, from time to time so that not more than 8 years elapse between successive reviews.

(3) A local government is to carry out a review described in subclause (1)

or (2) at any time if the Advisory Board requires the local government in writing to do so.

[Clause 6 amended by No. 49 of 2004 s. 68(5) and (6).]


7 Reviews

(1) Before carrying out a review a local government has to give local public notice advising —

(a) that the review is to be carried out; and (b) that submissions may be made to the local government before

a day fixed by the notice, being a day that is not less than 6 weeks after the notice is first given.

(2) In carrying out the review the local government is to consider

submissions made to it before the day fixed by the notice. 8 Matters to be considered in respect of wards

Before a local government proposes that an order be made — (a) to do any of the matters in section 2.2(1), other than discontinuing a

ward system; or (b) to specify or change the number of offices of councillor for a ward, or

proposes under clause 4(2) that a submission be rejected, its council is to have regard, where applicable, to —

(c) community of interests; (d) physical and topographic features; (e) demographic trends; (f) economic factors; and (g) the ratio of councillors to electors in the various wards. [Clause 8 amended by No. 49 of 2004 s. 68(7).]

9 Proposal by local government

On completing a review, the local government is to make a report in writing to the Advisory Board and may propose* to the Board the making of any order under section 2.2(1), 2.3(3) or 2.18(3) it thinks fit.


10 Recommendation by Advisory Board

(1) Where under clause 5(b) a local government proposes to the Advisory Board the making of an order under section 2.2(1), 2.3(3) or 2.18(3), and the Board is of the opinion that the proposal is —

(a) one of a minor nature; and


(b) not one about which public submissions need be invited, the Board, in a written report to the Minister, is to recommend the making of the order but otherwise is to inform the local government accordingly and the local government is to carry out a review.

(2) Where under clause 9 a local government proposes to the Advisory

Board the making of an order of a kind referred to in clause 8 that, in the Board’s opinion, correctly takes into account the matters referred to in clause 8(c) to (g), the Board, in a written report to the Minister, is to recommend the making of the order.

(3) Where a local government proposes to the Advisory Board the making

of an order of a kind referred to in clause 8, or that a submission under clause 4(2) be rejected, that, in the Board’s opinion, does not correctly take into account the matters referred to in that clause —

(a) the Board may inform the local government accordingly and

notify the local government that a proposal that does correctly take those matters into account is to be made within such time as is set out in the notice; and

(b) if the local government does not make a proposal as required

by a notice under paragraph (a), the Board may, in a written report to the Minister, recommend* the making of any order under section 2.2(1), 2.3(3) or 2.18(3) it thinks fit that would correctly take into account those matters.


(4) Where a local government fails to carry out a review as required by clause 6, the Advisory Board, in a written report to the Minister, may recommend* the making of any order under section 2.2(1), 2.3(3) or 2.18(3) it thinks fit that would correctly take into account the matters referred to in clause 8.


[Clause 10 amended by No. 49 of 2004 s. 68(8).]

11 Inquiry by Advisory Board

(1) For the purposes of deciding on the recommendation, if any, it is to make under clause 10(3)(b) or (4), the Advisory Board may carry out any inquiry it thinks necessary.

(2) The Advisory Board may recover the amount of the costs connected

with an inquiry under subclause (1) from the local government concerned as if it were for a debt due.


12 Minister may accept or reject recommendation

(1) The Minister may accept or reject a recommendation of the Advisory Board made under clause 10.

(2) If the recommendation is accepted the Minister can make a

recommendation to the Governor for the making of the appropriate order.

[Schedule 2.2 amended by No. 64 of 1998 s. 53; No. 49 of 2004 s. 68.]

Risk Management considerations: The associated risk with not undertaking the review of ward boundaries and elected member representation is that the Council would not be complying with its legislative requirements. Recent amendments to the Local Government Act 1995 allows the Local Government Advisory Board to request a local government to carry out a review of its representation at any time. The City received a letter from the Local Government Advisory Board in June 2005, requesting that the review be undertaken and submitted to the Local Government Advisory Board by no later than 30 June 2006. Financial/Budget Implications: Not Applicable. Policy implications: Not Applicable. Regional Significance: Not Applicable. Sustainability implications: The review of ward boundaries and elected member representation across the City of Joondalup will:

• Attempt to provide a fair and equitable representation for the electors of the district; • Ensure that the correct level of representation will assist individual members

performing their role under section 2.10 of the Local Government Act, and; • Aid in the ability of the Council to provide good government to the people of its

district. Consultation: The level of community consultation for the review was governed by the Local Government Act 1995. The review process involved a number of steps:

• Council resolves to undertake the review (11 October 2005); • Public submission period opens (20 October 2005); • Information provided to the community for discussion (20 October 2005); • Public submission period closes (2 December 2005);


• The Council considers all submissions and relevant factors and makes a decision (13 December 2005);

• The Council submits a report to the Local Government Advisory Board (the Board) for its consideration; and

• (If any change is proposed) the Board submits a recommendation to the Minister for Local Government and Regional Development (the Minister).

Schedule 2.2 Clause 7 of the Local Government Act 1995 states that when conducting a review the City is required to invite public submissions for a minimum period of six (6) weeks. Advertisements were placed in the local paper and on the City’s notice boards and website. In addition to the statutory advertising, letters were written to local members of parliament, the Joondalup Business Association and relevant residents and ratepayers groups within the City, advising them of the pending review and public workshops. News articles also appeared in the local newspaper and the ‘Council News’ publication produced by the City and distributed to every household within the district. In addition to the statutory public submission process as required by the Local Government Act 1995, and in an effort to assist informing the members of the public prior to them making a submission, two (2) public workshops were held as follows: -

• Joondalup Civic Centre 7 November 2005; and • Warwick Leisure Centre 9 November 2005.

Twenty-two (22) people attended those workshops. At the close of public submissions a total of seventeen (17) public submissions were received. Copies of the submissions are attached to this report. Of those submissions received: -

• eleven (11) supported retaining the current seven (7) ward structure; • of those who supported the current ward structure 5 submissions offered alternatives

if the status quo could not be retained, but all supported a seven (7) ward, fourteen (14) Councillor (two Councillors per ward), structure;

• one (1) supported example 2 as contained within the structure paper, twelve (12) Councillors, three per ward representing four (4) wards;

• one (1) supported a four (4) ward structure, with three Councillors per ward; • one (1) supported the creation of a new ward representing solely the Central

Business District (CBD) area; • one (1) supported an eight (8) ward structure with various representation across each

ward with a total of fourteen (14) Councillors. COMMENT The purpose of the review was to evaluate the current arrangements and consider other options to find the system of representation that best reflects the characteristics of the district and its people. Any of the following may be considered:

• Creating new wards in a district already divided into wards; • Changing the boundaries of a ward; • Abolishing any or all the wards into which the district is divided; • Changing the name of a district or ward; • Changing the number of offices of councillor on a council; and • Specifying or changing the number of offices of councillor for a ward.


The Board considers that the ratio of councillors to electors is always significant in determining the appropriate ward structure and levels of representation for local governments. It is expected that each local government will have similar ratios of councillors to electors across the wards of the district. The current average ratio of councillors (14) to electors (102,515) across the seven wards is one councillor to every 7322 electors. The Minister for Local Government and Regional Development has indicated that he will not consider changes to ward boundaries and representation that result in councillor/elector ratios that are greater than plus/minus 10% of the average councillor/elector ratio for the local government. Given that guideline, the current ward structure, based on current elector numbers per ward, for the City of Joondalup does not meet this requirement, with only the Lakeside and Whitfords Wards falling within the plus/minus 10% guideline. The following table provides comparison figures of councillor to elector ratios:

Councillor : Elector Ratio

City of Joondalup – current 1 : 7322

Average of all local governments in WA * 1 : 957

Average of the 30 metropolitan local governments in WA *

1 : 2852

* Information supplied by the Local Government Advisory Board. The Local Government Act 1995 does not prescribe the required number of elected members required to represent electors for each local government. The decision to determine the number of councillors is to be determined by the Council undertaken in an objective way and being mindful of the following factors: -


The review of the ward boundaries and councillor representation has been done based on the above determining factors. For individual local governments to achieve a review in an independent and objective manner may cause issues, given the number of parties that may have a degree of bias relating to the out come. It is suggested that any review required under the Local Government Act 1995 be undertaken in line with the Federal and State reviews, and be undertaken by the Western Australian Electoral Commission. Following an assessment of the options presented and having regard to the factors as prescribed by the Local Government Act 1995, it is recommended that the existing ward structure and councillor representation be abolished and replaced with: -

• Three (3) wards; • Four (4) councillors per ward, totalling 12 for the City of Joondalup; • The wards being named, North, Central and South.

The review does not include how the Mayor is elected. The Mayor will remain elected by the electors.


The advantages of a reduction in the number of councillors may include the following: -

• The increase in the ratio of councillors to electors is unlikely to be significant. Currently the average ratio of councillors to electors for the City is 1:7322. A reduction in the number of councillors to twelve (12) will result in the average across the City increasing to 1:8543. Currently the South Coastal ward (1:9235), and South ward (1:9971), which exceeds the proposed average across the City based on the ratio of councillors to electors presented in options 12 and 13.

• Consultation with the community can be achieved through a variety of means in

addition to individuals and groups contacting their local elected member.

• A reduction in the number of elected members may result in an increased commitment from those elected, reflected in greater interest and participation in Council’s affairs.

• Fewer elected members are more readily identifiable to the community.

• Fewer positions on Council may lead to greater interest in elections with contested

elections and those elected obtaining a greater level of support from the community.

• There is a Statewide trend for reductions in the number of elected members and many local governments have found that fewer elected members works well.

• There is also more scope for team spirit and cooperation amongst a smaller number

of people.

• The cost of maintaining elected members is likely to be reduced. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 Discussion Paper – Review of ward names, boundaries and elected

member representation; Attachment 2 Submissions received during the six (6) week public submission period; Attachment 3 Report concerning a review of ward names, boundaries and elected

member representation. VOTING REQUIREMENTS Absolute Majority OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION: That Council: 1 NOTES that the Local Government Advisory Board, in June 2005, requested the City





3 NOTES that the current ward boundaries and councillor representation of the City of Joondalup does not meet all the determining factors as detailed by the Local Government Act 1995, and the Local Government Advisory Board, being: -



for the City of Joondalup and meet the determining factors as detailed in one (1) above;


the determining factors as prescribed by the Local Government Act 1995 and the Local Government Advisory Board as detailed in (1) above: -


6 BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY decision ADOPTS, option 13 as outlined in

Attachment 3 to this report and in accordance with schedule 2.2 (9) of the Local Government Act, 1995, recommends to the Local Government Advisory Board that:





• Ward 1 – North Ward; • Ward 2 – South Ward; and • Ward 3 – Central Ward.


designate the following number of offices of councillor for each ward as detailed on option 13 as attached: -

• Ward 1 – North Ward - four (4) councillors; • Ward 2 – South Ward - four (4) councillors; and • Ward 3 – Central Ward – four (4) councillors.


the district of the City of Joondalup as detailed in (1), (2) and (3) above are in place for the election scheduled to be held 6 May 2006.


7 REQUESTS the Western Australian Local Government Association to request the Minister for Local Government and Regional Development to amend the Local Government Act 1995 to allow for any review of ward boundaries and councilor representation to be undertaken by the Western Australian Electoral Commission.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Minor adjustments are required to be made to the recommendation of the report. A revised recommendation is provided below with changed areas shown shaded and underlined. REVISED OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION: That Council: 1 NOTES that the Local Government Advisory Board, in June 2005, requested the City




3 NOTES that the current ward boundaries and councillor representation of the City of

Joondalup does not meet all the determining factors as detailed by the Local Government Act 1995, and the Local Government Advisory Board, being:



for the City of Joondalup and meet the determining factors as detailed in three (3) above;


the determining factors as prescribed by the Local Government Act 1995 and the Local Government Advisory Board as detailed in three (3) above:

Option 3; Option 10; Option 11; Option 12; Option 13;

6 ADOPTS, option 13 as outlined in Attachment 3 to this Report and in accordance with

schedule 2.2 (9) of the Local Government Act, 1995, recommends to the Local Government Advisory Board that:






Ward 1 – North Ward; Ward 2 – Central; and Ward 3 – South Ward.


designate the following number of offices of councillor for each ward as detailed on option 13 as attached:

Ward 1 – North Ward - four (4) councillors; Ward 2 – Central Ward - four (4) councillors; and Ward 3 – South Ward – four (4) councillors.


the district of the City of Joondalup as detailed in (a), (b) and (c) above are in place for the election scheduled to be held 6 May 2006;

7 REQUESTS the Western Australian Local Government Association to request the

Minister for Local Government and Regional Development to amend the Local Government Act 1995 to allow for any review of ward boundaries and councillor representation to be undertaken by the Western Australian Electoral Commission.

MOVED Cmr Clough, SECONDED Cmr Fox that Council: 1 NOTES that the Local Government Advisory Board, in June 2005, requested the

City of Joondalup to undertake a review of its ward boundaries and elected member representation and submit a report to the Local Government Advisory Board by no later than 30 June 2006;

2 NOTES that the Local Government Advisory Board has also requested the City

of Wanneroo to undertake a review of its ward boundaries and elected member representation by 30 June 2006;

3 NOTES that the current ward boundaries and Councillor representation of the

City of Joondalup does not meet all the determining factors as detailed by the Local Government Act 1995, and the Local Government Advisory Board, being:


4 NOTES it has not been able to identify a seven (7) ward, two (2) Councillor per

ward model that meets the determining factors as detailed in three (3) above; 5 NOTES that the following options as outlined in Attachment 3 to Report

C73-12/05 meet all the determining factors as prescribed by the Local Government Act 1995 and the Local Government Advisory Board as detailed in (3) above:



6 ADOPTS, option 12 as outlined in Attachment 3 to Report C73-12/05 with the

following amendments:

• The suburb of Edgewater being relocated from ward 3 to ward 2; and • The suburb of Kallaroo being relocated from ward 2 to ward 3.

7 in accordance with schedule 2.2 (9) of the Local Government Act, 1995,

recommends to the Local Government Advisory Board that:

(a) An order be made under section 2.2(1) of the Local Government Act, 1995, to abolish the existing ward boundaries for the City of Joondalup and divide the district into six (6) new wards with boundaries as detailed in the map – option 12 attached and as amended in 6 above;

(b) An order be made under section 2.3 of the Local Government Act, 1995,

to name the six (6) wards as detailed in option 12 and as amended in 6 above, as follows:

• Ward 1 – North Ward; • Ward 2 – North Central Ward; • Ward 3 – Central Ward; • Ward 4 – South-West Ward; • Ward 5 – South-East Ward; and • Ward 6 – South Ward.

(c) An order be made under section 2.18 of the Local Government Act 1995

to designate the following number of offices of Councillor for each ward as detailed on option 12 as amended in 6 above:

• Ward 1 – North Ward – two (2) Councillors; • Ward 2 – North Central Ward – two (2) Councillors; • Ward 3 – Central Ward – two (2) Councillors; • Ward 4 – South-West Ward – two (2) Councillors; • Ward 5 – South-East Ward – two (2) Councillors; and • Ward 6 – South Ward – two (2) Councillors.

(d) The changes to the ward names, boundaries and councillor

representation for the district of the City of Joondalup as detailed in (a), (b) and (c) above are in place for the election scheduled to be held 6 May 2006;

8 REQUESTS the Western Australian Local Government Association to request

the Minister for Local Government and Regional Development to amend the Local Government Act 1995 to allow for any review of ward boundaries and councillor representation to be undertaken by the Western Australian Electoral Commission.

Discussion ensued.


AMENDMENT MOVED Cmr Smith, SECONDED Cmr Clough that an additional Point 9 be added to the Motion as follows: “9 NOTES that there will be 13 elected members under this proposal and that the

Mayor would continue to be elected at large.” Cmr Smith spoke to the Amendment. The Amendment was Put and CARRIED (5/0) The Original Motion as amended, being: That Council: 1 NOTES that the Local Government Advisory Board, in June 2005, requested the

City of Joondalup to undertake a review of its ward boundaries and elected member representation and submit a report to the Local Government Advisory Board by no later than 30 June 2006;

2 NOTES that the Local Government Advisory Board has also requested the City

of Wanneroo to undertake a review of its ward boundaries and elected member representation by 30 June 2006;

3 NOTES that the current ward boundaries and Councillor representation of the

City of Joondalup does not meet all the determining factors as detailed by the Local Government Act 1995, and the Local Government Advisory Board, being:


4 NOTES it has not been able to identify a seven (7) ward, two (2) Councillor per

ward model that meets the determining factors as detailed in three (3) above; 5 NOTES that the following options as outlined in Attachment 3 to Report

C73-12/05 meet all the determining factors as prescribed by the Local Government Act 1995 and the Local Government Advisory Board as detailed in (3) above:


6 ADOPTS, option 12 as outlined in Attachment 3 to Report C73-12/05 with the

following amendments:

• The suburb of Edgewater being relocated from ward 3 to ward 2; and • The suburb of Kallaroo being relocated from ward 2 to ward 3.


7 in accordance with schedule 2.2 (9) of the Local Government Act, 1995, recommends to the Local Government Advisory Board that:

(a) An order be made under section 2.2(1) of the Local Government Act,

1995, to abolish the existing ward boundaries for the City of Joondalup and divide the district into six (6) new wards with boundaries as detailed in the map – option 12 attached and as amended in 6 above;

(b) An order be made under section 2.3 of the Local Government Act, 1995,

to name the six (6) wards as detailed in option 12 and as amended in 6 above, as follows:

• Ward 1 – North Ward; • Ward 2 – North Central Ward; • Ward 3 – Central Ward; • Ward 4 – South-West Ward; • Ward 5 – South-East Ward; and • Ward 6 – South Ward.

(c) An order be made under section 2.18 of the Local Government Act 1995

to designate the following number of offices of Councillor for each ward as detailed on option 12 as amended in 6 above:

• Ward 1 – North Ward – two (2) Councillors; • Ward 2 – North Central Ward – two (2) Councillors; • Ward 3 – Central Ward – two (2) Councillors; • Ward 4 – South-West Ward – two (2) Councillors; • Ward 5 – South-East Ward – two (2) Councillors; and • Ward 6 – South Ward – two (2) Councillors.

(d) The changes to the ward names, boundaries and councillor

representation for the district of the City of Joondalup as detailed in (a), (b) and (c) above are in place for the election scheduled to be held 6 May 2006;

8 REQUESTS the Western Australian Local Government Association to request

the Minister for Local Government and Regional Development to amend the Local Government Act 1995 to allow for any review of ward boundaries and councillor representation to be undertaken by the Western Australian Electoral Commission;

9 NOTES that there will be 13 elected members under this proposal and that the

Mayor would continue to be elected at large. The Motion was Put and CARRIED BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY (5/0) Appendices 31, 31(a), 31(b) and 31(c) refer To access this attachment on electronic document, click here: Attach31min131205.pdf Attach31amin131205.pdf Attach31bmin131205.pdf Attach31cmin131205.pdf


Attach31amin131205.pdf

Attach31bmin131205.pdf

Attach31cmin131205.pdf


Name/Position Cmr P Clough Item No/Subject CJ271-12/05 – Lot 118 Mindarie Establishment Agreement Nature of interest Interest that may affect impartiality Extent of Interest Cmr Clough has been appointed to take up a position once the new


the new Council is created. CJ271 - 12/05 LOT 118 MINDARIE ESTABLISHMENT AGREEMENT

– [41196] WARD: All RESPONSIBLE Mr David Djulbic DIRECTOR: Infrastructure Services CJ051206_BRF.DOC:ITEM 9 PURPOSE To advise progress with the development of an Establishment Agreement for the Tamala Park Regional Council and to seek approval to be a co-signatory of the Agreement with the other Local Governments that are the Joint owners of Lot 118 Mindarie. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Tamala Park Regional Council, through urban development in accordance with the objectives set out in the Establishment Agreement, will facilitate approximately 2,600 lots to be provided within the municipal district of the City of Wanneroo in the north-west corridor of the metropolitan region. The development will provide better utilisation of existing infrastructure and enhance catchment areas for ongoing provision of public facilities and services and for economic development of the corridor. Whilst a number of matters relating to the development of Lot 118 for urban purposes has previously been considered by Council, resolutions as outlined below by participant Councils authorising signing of the Establishment Agreement will facilitate early submission of the Agreement to the Minister for Local Government and Regional Development. It is recommended that Council: 1 APPROVES the Establishment Agreement for the Tamala Park Regional Council as

submitted with this report at Attachment 1 to Report CJ271-12/05; 2 AUTHORISES the Chief Executive Officer to sign and seal the Establishment

Agreement when compiled in final form;


3 AUTHORISES the Establishment Agreement to be submitted to the Hon. Minister for Local Government and Regional Development requesting approval from the Hon. Minister for the establishment of the Tamala Park Regional Council and for gazettal of the approval at the earliest possible date;

4 NOTES that settlement of Bush Forever issues with the WAPC is well advanced and

that compensation payments totalling $16,334M will be due for payment by the WAPC to the joint owners of Lot 118 Mindarie, the majority of which payment will be made by two (2) instalments in the 2005/06 financial year;

5 ENDORSES (in accordance with the proposed Establishment Agreement) payment of

the compensation referred to in (4) direct to the Tamala Park Regional Council, if the Council is established at the time that the payments by the WAPC are made to the owners and that in the event that the Tamala park Regional Council is not established at the time that the WAPC payments are made, that the amounts received by the Council be paid to a trust account and remitted to the Tamala Park Regional Council when the Tamala park Regional Council is formally established.

BACKGROUND On 28 June 2005 Council considered a number of matters relating to its shared ownership of Lot 118 Mindarie, including the prospect for the development of part Lot 118 for urban purposes. The following resolution was carried:

‘That Council, BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY: 1 ADOPTS the Business Plan as detailed in Attachment 2 to Report CJ129-

06/05; 2 APPROVES the Deed of Variation of Lease between the owners of Lot 118

Mindarie and the Mindarie Regional Council as expressed at Attachment 3 to Report CJ129-06/05;

3 APPROVES the Lease Amendment between the owners of Lot 118 Mindarie

and the Mindarie Regional Council as depicted at Attachment 4 to Report CJ129-06/05;

4 AUTHORISES the Chief Executive Officer to execute the necessary

documents to give effect to the Lease Amendment document between the City and the Mindarie Regional Council;

5 APPROVES the negotiations for a Bush Forever settlement with the WA

Planning Commission to proceed in accordance with the outline contained in the Lot 118 Mindarie Business Plan depicted at Attachment 2 to Report CJ129-06/05;

6 SUBJECT to a resolution to proceed with the Establishment Agreement being

passed by all of the other owner Councils, formally apply to the Hon. Minister for Local Government in accordance with Section 3.61 of the Local Government Act for the establishment of the Regional Council;

7 REQUESTS that all minutes of meetings of the Tamala Park Regional Council

be tabled to the Council for its consideration, at the earliest possible Council meeting after which they become available.


DETAILS Issues and options considered: With respect to the proposed Tamala Park Regional Council (TPRC) the following matters are relevant: 1 Prior to completion of an Establishment Agreement for a new Regional Council, all of

the prospective participants were required to complete business plan formalities relating to:

(a) Proposed land transfers and agreements for the joint development of

approximately 165 hectares of Lot 118 Mindarie through the aegis of a Regional Council;

(b) Land transactions associated with a Negotiated Planning Solution (NPS) with

the West Australian Planning Commission (WAPC);

(c) Changes to a lease of part Lot 118 Mindarie to the Mindarie Regional Council and, in particular:

(i) A reduction in lease area from 252 hectares to 151.7 hectares (ii) Co-operative arrangements between the Mindarie Regional Council

and the proposed new Regional Council with respect to core functions of each of the Regional Councils

(iii) Establishing a market rent to apply to the lease from the date of amendment

2 All Business Plan formalities by all of the 7 co-owner Councils of Lot 118 and also by

the Mindarie Regional Council have been completed; 3 The Heads of Agreement and value of compensation for the NPS have been agreed

with the WAPC; 4 The Mindarie Regional Council has agreed the revised lease provisions and a market

rent for the new lease has been established; 5 A committee comprising the CEO’s of the 7 co-owner Councils have met on a

consistent basis to advance arrangements that will facilitate signing on behalf of owner Councils of all documentation including a draft Establishment Agreement for the new Regional Council;

6 The draft Establishment Agreement has been submitted for perusal by the

Department of Local Government & Regional Development, which has indicated that the document is in a form that may be submitted to the Hon. Minister for approval as required by Section 3.61(4) of the Local Government Act-1995;

7 The Local Government Act sets out particular detail of what is required to be included

in the Establishment Agreement for a Regional Council. Amongst the items that are required are the following:

• The name of the Regional Council • The (geographic) region description • The regional purpose • Membership of the Regional Council • How the Regional Council is financed


• The manner in which participants may withdraw from the Regional Council including settlement of obligations and assets

• Dispute resolution provisions All of the above matters are set out in the draft Establishment Agreement at Attachment 1. Link to Strategic Plan: Establishment of the Tamala Park Regional Council for the purposes of development Lot 118 Mindarie will be consistent with each of the four key focus areas on the City’s Strategic Plan as follows: Caring for the Environment: Conservation of environmental assets through reservation of portions of the land containing regionally significant bushland; supporting efficient use of water, energy and other resources through incorporation of best practice urban design principles in the development (eg water sensitive design, transit oriented design). Community Wellbeing: Providing a cohesive system of integrated land use planning through planning that balances built form and land use, community needs and the environment, and through supporting and encouraging the delivery and utilisation of a safe, effective transport network. City Development: Encourage local employment and economic, development through the urban design of the development (eg promote mixed use development and a business enterprise precinct). Organisational Development: Manage the development to provide a maximum return on the investment to benefit the City’s ratepayers and community. Legislation – Statutory Provisions: The establishment of a new Regional Council will provide the legal vehicle to facilitate urban development of land jointly owned by 7 local authorities. The local authority interests in each case will be preserved through the Establishment Agreement and participation in Regional Council decision-making through nominated representatives from each of the constituent Councils. The membership of the Regional Council, and voting, is determined by ownership shares in Lot 118 Mindarie. All of the 7 participant Councils have nominated representatives for the new Regional Council. The schedule of membership interest and nominated Council members are shown in the following tables:

MEMBERSHIP INTEREST Council Project Shareholding

Joint Development Shares

Town of Cambridge 1/12 City of Perth 1/12 Town of Victoria Park 1/12 Town of Vincent 1/12 City of Joondalup 2/12 City of Wanneroo 2/12 City of Stirling 4/12


NOMINATED COUNCIL MEMBERS

Owner Council Member Deputy Member Town of Cambridge Mayor M Anderton Cr K Barlow City of Joondalup Chairman of Cmr J Paterson

Deputy Cmr P Clough Cmr M Anderson

City of Perth Cr E Evangel Deputy Lord Mayor Cr M Sutherland

City of Stirling Mayor T Tyzack Cr D Boothman Cr T Clarey Cr B Stewart

Cr B Ham Cr P Rose

Town of Victoria Park Cr D Nairn Cr R Skinner Town of Vincent Mayor N Catania Deputy Mayor Cr S Farrell City of Wanneroo Mayor J Kelly

Deputy Mayor Cr S Salpietro

Before the Regional Council can be established it is required that all of the participant Councils sign the Establishment Agreement. The Establishment Agreement is then submitted to the Hon. Minister for Local Government & Regional Development. If the Minister approves the Agreement, the Regional Council comes into operation on the date on which the Minister’s approval is notified in Government Gazette (section 3.61(4) of the Local Government Act). Risk Management considerations: The Regional Council, in performing its duties, will be required to work within the framework as set out within the establishment agreement, relevant statutory regulations and adopt necessary policies and procedures to achieve the Regional Council’s objectives. Financial/Budget Implications: The planning and development of Lot 118 will involve financial implications for Council, although it should be noted that all costs and returns are shared amongst the seven owner Councils according to their ownership share of the land (this City’s share is two-twelfths). It is noted that the City has listed as part of the 2005/06 budget, $40,000 as its owner’s share in administrative and associated costs necessary to establish the new Regional Council and associated activities. It is also emphasised that the compensation payable to the owners under the proposed Bush Forever NPS will provide seeding capital to cover or offset initial stages of subdivisional works. Cash flow analysis based on the owners’ earlier structure plan was that the development could achieve positive cash flow returns within two years of commencement. Policy Implications: Not Applicable. Regional Significance: Lot 118 is a critical piece of land in the WAPC projections for urban land releases in the northern corridor. Development of the land will feed into the efficient utilisation of local infrastructure and the viability of local businesses.


Following the development of Burns Beach Lot 2 to the south (approximately 1,100 lots) and Somerly immediately adjacent to the north (approximately 1,400 lots remaining), Lot 118 is the one remaining large land parcel to be developed south of Neerabup Road. Following extensive research by the CEO Group and solicitors, it has become apparent that the logical vehicle for decision making and to provide legal status for transactions throughout a prolonged development period is a Regional Council established under the Local Government Act. A Regional Council will require an Establishment Agreement setting out the way in which the Council operates. The form of the Agreement is set out in Local Government legislation. The Minister administering the Local Government Act must approve the Agreement. Sustainability Implications: Included within the objectives of the Regional (Development) Council is to balance economic, social and environmental considerations to produce a quality development demonstrating the best urban design and development practice. Consultation: The formal consultation about proposals required through advertising of the Business Plan has been completed. Progressive consultation about proposals for the new Regional Council have been continuing with the Office of the Minister responsible for final approval of the Establishment Agreement. COMMENT It will be possible, subject to Ministerial approval, for the Regional Council to be established and meet to conduct its regional purpose commencing early in 2006. In the development of the Establishment Agreement it has been proposed that funding for development activity would be initiated through the assignment by participants of compensation payments due from the WAPC as part of Bush Forever settlement on transfer of part of Lot 118 for public purposes. The Negotiated Planning Solution is yet to be formalised but agreement has been reached on the amounts of compensation that would be recommended to the WAPC and Councils. The compensation figures are based upon valuations obtained from the Valuer General (for the owner Councils) and from internal DPI valuers (for the WAPC). The amounts of compensation supported by the valuations are as follows:

POST DELINEATION SURVEY

Plan Nos Areas m2 Value $ $ Per Ha Owners Calc Original residential land 3, 6 60.3406 76,600,000 1,269,460 30% western residential ceded free of cost

Pt 6 18.10218 22,980,000

Balance of residential compensated at residential values

Pt 6 11.75942 14,928,118

Add rural values 9, 12 5.8446 175,400 Add rural values 1, 15 73.9215 1,220,000 SUB TOTAL 16,323,517.59 + Valuation Fee 50% 11,130 TOTAL COMPENSATION 16,334,647.59


The WAPC is proposing payment of at least $14.928M in the 2005/06 financial year representing all of the compensation due for that part of Lot 118 Mindarie west of Marmion Avenue. In the event that the NPS and associated payments are wholly or partially completed prior to the commencement date for the new Regional Council, the compensation payments received from the WAPC will, in terms of the Establishment Agreement provisions, be dealt with as follows: Each Participant is to ensure that the amount of the State's payment or payments of compensation to that Participant under the Bush Forever Policy in respect of the Land:

(a) is paid to the TPRC directly by the State; or

(b) is paid by the Participant to the TPRC within 14 days of:

(i) the payment being received from the State by the Participant; or

(ii) the Operative Date,

whichever occurs later. The imminent settlement of the NPS does, therefore, raise the prospect that compensation payments for substantial amounts will be remitted direct to individual participants and will need to be retained by the participants in trust accounts awaiting the formal establishment of the Regional Council. The Establishment Agreement submitted in draft form requires only minor amendments (as noted in the Agreement) before being engrossed in final form for signing by the participants. The plans referred to in the draft Agreement are to be more particularly prepared by Whelans, surveyors, for substitution of the currently included plans. Resolutions by participant Councils authorising signing of the Establishment Agreement will facilitate early submission of the agreement to the Minister for Local Government & Regional Development.


ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 Establishment Agreement VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority MOVED Cmr Smith, SECONDED Cmr Clough that Council: 1 APPROVES the Establishment Agreement for the Tamala Park Regional Council

as submitted at Attachment 1 to Report CJ271-12/05; 2 AUTHORISES the Chief Executive Officer to sign and seal the Establishment

Agreement when compiled in final form; 3 AUTHORISES the Establishment Agreement to be submitted to the Hon.

Minister for Local Government and Regional Development requesting approval from the Hon. Minister for the establishment of the Tamala Park Regional Council and for gazettal of the approval at the earliest possible date;

4 NOTES that settlement of Bush Forever issues with the WAPC is well advanced

and that compensation payments totalling $16,334,000 will be due for payment by the WAPC to the joint owners of Lot 118 Mindarie, the majority of which payment will be made by two (2) instalments in the 2005/06 financial year;

5 ENDORSES (in accordance with the proposed Establishment Agreement)

payment of the compensation referred to in (4) direct to the Tamala Park Regional Council, if the Council is established at the time that the payments by the WAPC are made to the owners and that in the event that the Tamala park Regional Council is not established at the time that the WAPC payments are made, that the amounts received by the Council be paid to a trust account and remitted to the Tamala Park Regional Council when the Tamala Park Regional Council is formally established.

Chief Executive Officer reiterated earlier comments that advice had been received from the lawyers to the effect that a new clause (c) has been added, with minor wording changes to (a) and (b) to clarify any potential confusion between the definition of the land and the plans provided. The Motion was Put and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (5/0) Appendix 8 refers To access this attachment on electronic document, click here: Attach8brf061205.pdf



C74-12/05 BUSINESS EXCELLENCE FRAMEWORK SEMINAR WARD: All RESPONSIBLE Mr Garry Hunt DIRECTOR: Office of the CEO

In view of the fact the seminar has now been cancelled, this Item was WITHDRAWN MOTIONS OF WHICH PREVIOUS NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN Nil. DATE OF NEXT MEETING The next meeting of the Council has been scheduled for 7.00 pm on TUESDAY, 21 FEBRUARY 2006 to be held in the Council Chamber, Joondalup Civic Centre, Boas Avenue, Joondalup. Commissioner Paterson advised Commissioners would only be involved in Council meetings for the months of February, March and April 2006. Commissioner Paterson thanked Chief Executive Officer, Commissioners and staff for their support during this year, as well as the community and offered his best wishes for the festive season.

CLOSURE There being no further business, the Chairman declared the Meeting closed at 2136 hrs; the following Commissioners being present at that time:

CMR J PATERSON CMR P CLOUGH CMR M ANDERSON CMR S SMITH CMR A FOX

Christmas Wishes On behalf of the Management and administrative staff of the City, the Chief Executive Officer offered Christmas wishes to the Chairman, Commissioners and members of the public in the gallery. Chief Executive Officer also thanked Commissioners for their contribution, as well as staff for the time he has been with the City in 2005.

Documents

Council Minutes: 13 December 2005 - City of Joondalup · c69-12/05 petition requesting removal of she-oak trees, korella park and gunida park, mullaloo and replacement with local